PDA

View Full Version : ARCHIVE: Zakath is Genuine!



Pages : [1] 2

wickwoman
March 31st, 2005, 12:17 PM
I mean it.

He has a good sense of humor.

He's friendly.

He always uses good grammar.

He's intelligent.

He likes beer!

What more can I say?

JoyfulRook
March 31st, 2005, 12:19 PM
How 'bout "He's going to Hell" ?

Zakath
March 31st, 2005, 12:22 PM
Why thank you, WW! I appreciate the thought. :D

wickwoman
March 31st, 2005, 12:23 PM
There is a counter-culture on TOL. Sometimes you can't hear our voices over the liesmacking but we're out there!

Zakath
March 31st, 2005, 12:25 PM
How 'bout "He's going to Hell" ?Nope. Already been there. It's about 20 miles from Ann Arbor, MI (http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?country=US&addtohistory=&formtype=address&searchtype=address&cat=&address=&city=hell&state=MI&zipcode=&searchtab=home). But I left years ago. :D

Nineveh
March 31st, 2005, 12:26 PM
There is a counter-culture on TOL. Sometimes you can't hear our voices over the liesmacking but we're out there!

And "out there" is where you will remain until you come to terms with Christ, who claims to be the Truth.

On Fire
March 31st, 2005, 12:27 PM
Nope. Already been there. It's about 20 miles from Ann Arbor, MI (http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?country=US&addtohistory=&formtype=address&searchtype=address&cat=&address=&city=hell&state=MI&zipcode=&searchtab=home). But I left years ago. :D
: arnold : You'll be back. :/arnold :

Zakath
March 31st, 2005, 12:27 PM
And "out there" is where you will remain until you come to terms with Christ, who claims to be the Truth.Perhaps it would be more correct to say "whose followers claim to be the Truth." ;)

JoyfulRook
March 31st, 2005, 12:29 PM
How 'bout "He's going to Hell" ?
Unless of course you are eternally secure, but we don't even want to get into that. :box:

Granite
March 31st, 2005, 12:31 PM
I mean it.

He has a good sense of humor.

He's friendly.

He always uses good grammar.

He's intelligent.

He likes beer!

What more can I say?

:thumb:

Let the apostates enjoy their own fellowship time...

:devil:

Four O'Clock
March 31st, 2005, 12:43 PM
Perhaps it would be more correct to say "whose followers claim to be the Truth." ;)

Actually Zak, from all accounts He did claim to be the Truth (God incarnate) and that alone cost Him His Life.
Or if I wasn't a Christian I could still reply: "but Zak, he did claim to be the truth implying he was God incarnate and that alone cost him his life."

Just thought I'd clarify ;)

Gerald
March 31st, 2005, 12:45 PM
How 'bout "He's going to Hell" ?Have you ever tried to be the instrument that brought about someone's passage to that realm?

Have you ever wanted to?

If someone like Zakath was in a Terri Schiavo-like predicament, and unable to voice repentance, would you advocate keeping him alive, or would you rather allow nature to take its course?

Ecumenicist
March 31st, 2005, 12:59 PM
Nope. Already been there. It's about 20 miles from Ann Arbor, MI (http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?country=US&addtohistory=&formtype=address&searchtype=address&cat=&address=&city=hell&state=MI&zipcode=&searchtab=home). But I left years ago. :D

Not far from Climax, is it?

;)

godrulz
March 31st, 2005, 01:10 PM
Zak is a decent dude, but he is deceived :wazzup:

JoyfulRook
March 31st, 2005, 01:13 PM
Have you ever tried to be the instrument that brought about someone's passage to that realm? Nope.


Have you ever wanted to? Nope.


If someone like Zakath was in a Terri Schiavo-like predicament, and unable to voice repentance, would you advocate keeping him alive, or would you rather allow nature to take its course? I would always advocate keeping the victim alive in Terri's predicament.

Zakath
March 31st, 2005, 01:14 PM
: arnold : You'll be back. :/arnold :Not likely, but I appreciate "the governator" humor. :thumb:

erinmarie
March 31st, 2005, 01:14 PM
How 'bout "He's going to Hell" ?


:ha:
Zakath is my buddy, but that was a quick and witty response! The Boy Wonder strikes again!

Zakath
March 31st, 2005, 01:15 PM
Not far from Climax, is it?

;)Not gonna touch that one with a ten foot pole...

I've heard it's pretty close to Wedlock, depending how you get there... ;)

Zakath
March 31st, 2005, 01:16 PM
I would always advocate keeping the victim alive in Terri's predicament.Hard to torture them after they're dead, eh?

JoyfulRook
March 31st, 2005, 01:17 PM
Nope. Already been there. It's about 20 miles from Ann Arbor, MI (http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?country=US&addtohistory=&formtype=address&searchtype=address&cat=&address=&city=hell&state=MI&zipcode=&searchtab=home). But I left years ago. :D
On that site:

Hell Offers:

Hell Hotels

Hell Insurance

Hell Schools

Hell Flights

Hell Homes

Hell Used Cars

Hell Apartments

Hell Jobs

Hell Real Estate


Anyone ever wanted to get a Hell Home? :D

Zakath
March 31st, 2005, 01:22 PM
On that site:

Hell Offers:

Hell Hotels, Hell Insurance, Hell Schools, Hell Flights, Hell Homes, etc.

Don't get too excited, it's just MapQuest.

[Doesn't get out much, does he? ;) ]

wickwoman
March 31st, 2005, 02:01 PM
EEEKKK! An angry mob is forming. Quick Zak, Granite, follow me down this portal to a magical land:

http://www.disney.co.uk/toontown/

JoyfulRook
March 31st, 2005, 02:16 PM
[Doesn't get out much, does he? ;) ]
That's not a nice thing to say just because I haven't been to Hell. :D

Zakath
March 31st, 2005, 02:17 PM
That's not a nice thing to say just because I haven't been to Hell. :DWith an avatar like yours, you could've fooled me... ;)

Zakath
March 31st, 2005, 02:18 PM
EEEKKK! An angry mob is forming. Quick Zak, Granite, follow me down this portal to a magical land:

http://www.disney.co.uk/toontown/Looks a little like a suburb of Denver... :chuckle:

JoyfulRook
March 31st, 2005, 02:21 PM
With an avatar like yours, you could've fooled me... ;)
I changed it. I don't want to give people the wrong impression. ;) (BTW: the Avvie it is now was my original when I joined the site.)

Zakath
March 31st, 2005, 02:24 PM
Give me a half-naked barbarian anyday... fewer places to conceal weapons... ;)

JoyfulRook
March 31st, 2005, 02:28 PM
Uh, this is the whole picture....

Zakath
March 31st, 2005, 02:32 PM
I thought that looked familiar... I remember that group. Though they were a bit after my time... :guitar:

JoyfulRook
March 31st, 2005, 02:41 PM
I thought that looked familiar... I remember that group. Though they were a bit after my time... :guitar:
And what about Rush? (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=709866&postcount=27)

Zakath
March 31st, 2005, 02:42 PM
And what about Rush? (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=709866&postcount=27)
Them too... :(

The Edge
March 31st, 2005, 02:50 PM
I am going to have to agree with the lady. Zakath is professional, doesn't get angry like So-Slow, and he states what he believes and goes with it.

Zakath
March 31st, 2005, 03:17 PM
I am going to have to agree with the lady. Zakath is professional, doesn't get angry like So-Slow, and he states what he believes and goes with it.Those are awfully positive words for a Christian around here. Thank you.

I'd watch my back if I were you... :chuckle:

wickwoman
March 31st, 2005, 03:40 PM
Yes, poor Edge. I hate to see him so vulnerable. It's only a matter of time before the vultures begin circle. Edge, we could develop a secret code where it sounds like you're saying terrible and insulting things but really it's means something else that only people like me, Zak and Granite know.

Well, at least Sozo's gone. That's one less vulture. Edgy, you can take the magic portal too if you want to.

The Edge
March 31st, 2005, 03:47 PM
why do I have to watch my back? did I say something incorrect?

wickwoman
March 31st, 2005, 03:52 PM
Psst. Edgy, over hear. *whispering* Some people here think that being nice is a bad thing.

Zakath
March 31st, 2005, 03:55 PM
What she said... ;)

erinmarie
March 31st, 2005, 03:57 PM
Psst. Edgy, over hear. *whispering* Some people here think that being nice is a bad thing.
There's a difference between being nice and kissing the butt of anyone who will pay attention to you. I think "The Edge" is "nice" to everyone, as long as it suits his ego.

The Edge
March 31st, 2005, 04:00 PM
There's a difference between being nice and kissing the butt of anyone who will pay attention to you. I think "The Edge" is "nice" to everyone, as long as it suits his ego.
Erin Marie......now you listen to me

I'll be nice to everyone because that is what my Lord teaches us to do. Please do not make incorrect judgements about me based on text on a screen. You do not know me and have no right to say such nasty things about someone you don't know in the presence of other people who have not made up their minds yet.

I never say anything bad about you. Give me the same respect please.

TE

Zakath
March 31st, 2005, 04:02 PM
See what WW meant, Edge? :rolleyes:

Granite
March 31st, 2005, 04:03 PM
Erin Marie......now you listen to me

I'll be nice to everyone because that is what my Lord teaches us to do. Please do not make incorrect judgements about me based on text on a screen. You do not know me and have no right to say such nasty things about someone you don't know in the presence of other people who have not made up their minds yet.

I never say anything bad about you. Give me the same respect please.

TE

Hey formerly october!

I think Zak, Wick, and myself--hey; we're an unholy trinity!--are just saying you will run the risk of TOL-branded wrath should the Powers That Be ever think you're taking sides against your brethern.

Just a friendly FYI, that's all.

As for Sozo, I will be VERY surprised if he's gone for good. Bad penny, and all that.

The Edge
March 31st, 2005, 04:04 PM
You attract more bees with honey than with vinegar.

Jesus won people over by being nice and spending time with them and not by argueing with them and fighting.

My alliegance is laid out in the word "Christian" that appears under my name.

servent101
March 31st, 2005, 04:05 PM
edge
why do I have to watch my back? did I say something incorrect?

It is an energy thing - looking at history might shed some light - the "established religion of any and every region" kills the person who sets them straight - the Jews did to Jesus, they tried to kill Mohamad, then the leaders of Islam tried to kill Bahahullah, they sucessifuly killed the Bab - his predicessor - anyways, if you haventfigured it out yet, religion is just an excuse most people use to hate and hurt their neighbour, and if you are not of the same cloth, they hate and hurt you.

So as Zakath warns - I agree, watch your back.

With Christ's love

Servent101

erinmarie
March 31st, 2005, 04:07 PM
Erin Marie......now you listen to me
I am entitled to my opinion of you. And I do listen to you, thus the less than "nice" opinion.


I'll be nice to everyone because that is what my Lord teaches us to do. Please do not make incorrect judgements about me based on text on a screen. You do not know me and have no right to say such nasty things about someone you don't know in the presence of other people who have not made up their minds yet.

I never say anything bad about you. Give me the same respect please.

TE

So, the only way you can make a negative opinion of someone is if they have a negative opinion of you? :think:

The Edge
March 31st, 2005, 04:10 PM
Yes you can form a negative opinion of me all you want, Erin Marie. But don't go blabbering it everywhere. I did nothing to you. I don't go around telling people what I think of you. You seem to be popular and well loved here and I see no reason to damage that for you. So don't do it for me. Ignore me if you don't like me.

The Edge
March 31st, 2005, 04:11 PM
Our Lord teaches us to say things that edify others, not tear them down.

wickwoman
March 31st, 2005, 04:15 PM
You attract more bees with honey than with vinegar.

Jesus won people over by being nice and spending time with them and not by argueing with them and fighting.

My alliegance is laid out in the word "Christian" that appears under my name.

That's so cute. You're from the South aren't you? A real Southern Gentleman. I love that!

The Edge
March 31st, 2005, 04:16 PM
I'm from Pennsylvania. I am currently assigned at Keesler Air Force Base in Biloxi, until 18 April. Then I return to my wife in Arizona.

Zakath
March 31st, 2005, 04:16 PM
Our Lord teaches us to say things that edify others, not tear them down.Keep it up, you'll have 'em all over you soon enough...

Don't say we didn't try to warn you. ;)

Zakath
March 31st, 2005, 04:17 PM
I'm from Pennsylvania. I am currently assigned at Keesler Air Force Base in Biloxi, until 18 April. Then I return to my wife in Arizona.
I'd rather be in AZ than MS most days... :thumb:

The Edge
March 31st, 2005, 04:18 PM
I like the dry Arizona weather. I don't like humidity anymore.

Here in Biloxi it's 70 with a dew point of 69. That's disgusting.

The Edge
March 31st, 2005, 04:19 PM
I am a gentleman, Wickwoman. You are correct there. So few left these days. Too bad some people can't see that.

wickwoman
March 31st, 2005, 04:37 PM
Oh well, they must have Gentlemen in Pennsylvania too. Notably, I didn't notice many in Boston last summer.

wickwoman
March 31st, 2005, 04:38 PM
So Granite, if you, me and Zak are the unholy trinity, which part am I? I want to be the "unholy Ghost."

The Edge
March 31st, 2005, 04:42 PM
So Granite, if you, me and Zak are the unholy trinity, which part am I? I want to be the "unholy Ghost."

:chuckle:

Lieutenant Edge

drbrumley
March 31st, 2005, 04:45 PM
:chuckle:

Lieutenant Edge

Are you aligning yourself with them?

The Edge
March 31st, 2005, 04:49 PM
No I'm laughing at the comedic value of the joke.

drbrumley
March 31st, 2005, 04:51 PM
whew!!!!

wickwoman
March 31st, 2005, 04:54 PM
Lt. Edge, Biloxi is not so far from here. Actually, I have relatives in Pachuta, if you know where that is. No? O.K. It's near Meridian. No? Oh never mind.

servent101
March 31st, 2005, 05:03 PM
The Edge
Our Lord teaches us to say things that edify others, not tear them down.

Was this to me? - was I tearing people down?... no-one responded?

With Christ's love

servent101

servent101
March 31st, 2005, 05:05 PM
This is the post no one responded too
edge
Quote:
why do I have to watch my back? did I say something incorrect?



It is an energy thing - looking at history might shed some light - the "established religion of any and every region" kills the person who sets them straight - the Jews did to Jesus, they tried to kill Mohamad, then the leaders of Islam tried to kill Bahahullah, they sucessifuly killed the Bab - his predicessor - anyways, if you haventfigured it out yet, religion is just an excuse most people use to hate and hurt their neighbour, and if you are not of the same cloth, they hate and hurt you.

So as Zakath warns - I agree, watch your back.

With Christ's love

Servent101

SOTK
March 31st, 2005, 05:57 PM
Have you ever tried to be the instrument that brought about someone's passage to that realm?

I'm pretty sure I have.

Ecumenicist
March 31st, 2005, 06:13 PM
This is the post no one responded too

I'll respond, sounds like good advice to me!

Dave

The Edge
March 31st, 2005, 07:51 PM
Servant,

No way man....you're fine. It's not to you. :):):):)

Edge

Zakath
March 31st, 2005, 07:59 PM
I'm pretty sure I have.That response sounds like you're a "hit man" for a crime syndicate... :chuckle:

Zakath
March 31st, 2005, 08:01 PM
So Granite, if you, me and Zak are the unholy trinity, which part am I? I want to be the "unholy Ghost."You and Granite can be whichever you decide. Call me anything you want, just don't call me late to dinner. :chew:

SOTK
March 31st, 2005, 08:03 PM
That response sounds like you're a "hit man" for a crime syndicate... :chuckle:

No, I was in the Army once upon a time and I killed. I'm pretty sure the enemy was not a Christian. :(

godrulz
March 31st, 2005, 08:04 PM
No, I was in the Army once upon a time and I killed. I'm pretty sure the enemy was not a Christian. :(

Did you really kill someone? Which war was it?

SOTK
March 31st, 2005, 08:13 PM
It wasn't a war. They liked calling it an "Incident". It was in Panama. We fought a terrorist cel which was attacking a local base.

Zakath
March 31st, 2005, 08:14 PM
No, I was in the Army once upon a time and I killed. I'm pretty sure the enemy was not a Christian. :(
In the big scheme of things, would it matter if the enemy was?

Zakath
March 31st, 2005, 08:15 PM
It wasn't a war. They liked calling it an "Incident". It was in Panama. We fought a terrorist cel which was attacking a local base.
"A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do..."

SOTK
March 31st, 2005, 10:24 PM
Yeah, I'm not necessarily losing any sleep over it, however, it can be a tough situation for me to come to terms with as a Christian.

Granite
April 1st, 2005, 07:20 AM
So Granite, if you, me and Zak are the unholy trinity, which part am I? I want to be the "unholy Ghost."

I'll be...hmmmm...well, Zak's older. He can be the Almighty Pater and I'll be the Unsanctified Son.

On Fire
April 1st, 2005, 07:40 AM
www.pagans.org is looking for you.

wickwoman
April 1st, 2005, 07:57 AM
You and Granite can be whichever you decide. Call me anything you want, just don't call me late to dinner. :chew:

I think you should be the "nonexistent diety" (your words not mine). Haven't you ever wanted to be something that doesn't exist? It's only fitting. Plus, you're older than Granite, he should be the son. O.K. Granite?

Later edited:

Oh, I see Granite's on board so that's it then! O.K., let's start some havok wreaking around this here place!

erinmarie
April 1st, 2005, 09:02 AM
I thought for a long time how I should respond to The Edge and his "threats". Turbo and I talked about it a bit last night, and I reread this thread:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16851 (http://)

It reaffirmed to me that you are wrong and I am right. I can judge all I want, as long as I judge rightly under God's Word. The stuff you spew is inaccurate and misleading. Jesus mocked, taunted and used wit and sarcasm. He was a great orater and not a butt kissing fool.
You can think you're exemplifying Jesus all you want, but you are wrong. Please reconsider your idea of the "Nicer than God" philosophy.

Secondly, I find fault with issues in your life that you yourself throw all around the board for others to comment on. If you don't want someone to create an opinion, then don't post it.

You complain that your son is "More like a two or a three year old than a five year old." OUCH! You talk about the burden of raising two young children and you are not even in the same state with them!
You complain about the gifts that God has given you, I called you out on it, you agreed with me and then continued on complaining.
You complain about the price of baby items, and how much money it costs to raise a child, and instead of supporting reprimanding your wife for her wasteful spending, and curbing it yourself, you suggest the manufacturer lower it's prices! HELLO!
You try to ingratiate yourself in with each "group" on TOL, with your "gentlemanly" manner...but it's all very disingenuous.

I considered ignoring your rebuke of my earlier comment, and I decided I can comment any way I want on any issue. I'm not afraid of any reprecussion that you think you can hurdle my way. Wanna give me ANOTHER negative response, go ahead.
I'm tired of your pandering and plodding around TOL without any sense of Christ's true Word or Intentions.

wickwoman
April 1st, 2005, 09:47 AM
I thought for a long time how I should respond to The Edge and his "threats". Turbo and I talked about it a bit last night, and I reread this thread:
www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16851 (http://)

It reaffirmed to me that you are wrong and I am right.

You read a thread to reaffirm your opinion of yourself? How insightful.


I can judge all I want, as long as I judge rightly under God's Word. The stuff you spew is inaccurate and misleading. Jesus mocked, taunted and used wit and sarcasm. He was a great orater and not a butt kissing fool.
You can think you're exemplifying Jesus all you want, but you are wrong. Please reconsider your idea of the "Nicer than God" philosophy.

Can you give us some scripture references to Jesus being sarcastic and taunting?

The Edge
April 1st, 2005, 09:50 AM
Erinmarie, I have no need to listen to your useless diatribe. Diatribe is defined as "a bitter, useless denunciation" and that is exactly what you are doing. You do not know me or our situation. You're slinging accusations. But remember, he/she who slings mud gets their hands dirty!

You don't like me, fine. But don't go trying to defame me and ruin my reputation on this board. I never, EVER did that to you or any person on this board. You have this bitter holier than thou attitude you're flaunting around. And to make it worse, you talk about people behind their backs.

You'll probably get a more thorough response later; I'm too busy in the forecasting lab right now to continue this.

Granite
April 1st, 2005, 09:53 AM
I thought for a long time how I should respond to The Edge and his "threats". Turbo and I talked about it a bit last night, and I reread this thread:
www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16851 (http://)

It reaffirmed to me that you are wrong and I am right. I can judge all I want, as long as I judge rightly under God's Word. The stuff you spew is inaccurate and misleading. Jesus mocked, taunted and used wit and sarcasm. He was a great orater and not a butt kissing fool.
You can think you're exemplifying Jesus all you want, but you are wrong. Please reconsider your idea of the "Nicer than God" philosophy.

Secondly, I find fault with issues in your life that you yourself throw all around the board for others to comment on. If you don't want someone to create an opinion, then don't post it.

You complain that your son is "More like a two or a three year old than a five year old." OUCH! You talk about the burden of raising two young children and you are not even in the same state with them!
You complain about the gifts that God has given you, I called you out on it, you agreed with me and then continued on complaining.
You complain about the price of baby items, and how much money it costs to raise a child, and instead of supporting reprimanding your wife for her wasteful spending, and curbing it yourself, you suggest the manufacturer lower it's prices! HELLO!
You try to ingratiate yourself in with each "group" on TOL, with your "gentlemanly" manner...but it's all very disingenuous.

I considered ignoring your rebuke of my earlier comment, and I decided I can comment any way I want on any issue. I'm not afraid of any reprecussion that you think you can hurdle my way. Wanna give me ANOTHER negative response, go ahead.
I'm tired of your pandering and plodding around TOL without any sense of Christ's true Word or Intentions.

This is what happens when a nice guy like The Edge shows up on TOL: he's accused of being sneaky. Uh-huuuuuh.

Erin, exactly what set off this little tantrum? Just because The Edge happens to be polite doesn't mean he agrees with everyone he talks to.

I'm reminded of that "Simpsons" episode where Grimes shows up in Springfield, tries to do his job, tries to act normal, and winds up electrocuted to death by the end of the show.

erinmarie
April 1st, 2005, 09:53 AM
Can you give us some scripture references to Jesus being sarcastic and taunting?


Please, read the opening post of the thread. It confirms everything I said, and what I believe. It also has many scriptural references.

wickwoman
April 1st, 2005, 09:55 AM
The link is no good. What topic is it? What is the title of the thread?

erinmarie
April 1st, 2005, 09:56 AM
This is what happens when a nice guy like The Edge shows up on TOL: he's accused of being sneaky. Uh-huuuuuh.

Erin, exactly what set off this little tantrum? Just because The Edge happens to be polite doesn't mean he agrees with everyone he talks to.

I'm reminded of that "Simpsons" episode where Grimes shows up in Springfield, tries to do his job, tries to act normal, and winds up electrocuted to death by the end of the show.

That's a good episode Granite. I don't believe it's a tantrum, and I do think I was pretty self explanatory in the above post. I just didn't want to walk away from the thread with a sense of "unfinished business". I wanted to speak my mind, and explain an earlier more off the cuff comment.

erinmarie
April 1st, 2005, 09:58 AM
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16851

On Fire
April 1st, 2005, 10:01 AM
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16851
Did The Edge post in that thread?

On Fire
April 1st, 2005, 10:10 AM
Never mind....I am now on the same page. Carry on.

ShadowMaid
April 1st, 2005, 10:18 AM
I thought for a long time how I should respond to The Edge and his "threats". Turbo and I talked about it a bit last night, and I reread this thread:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16851 (http://)

It reaffirmed to me that you are wrong and I am right. I can judge all I want, as long as I judge rightly under God's Word. The stuff you spew is inaccurate and misleading. Jesus mocked, taunted and used wit and sarcasm. He was a great orater and not a butt kissing fool.
You can think you're exemplifying Jesus all you want, but you are wrong. Please reconsider your idea of the "Nicer than God" philosophy.

Secondly, I find fault with issues in your life that you yourself throw all around the board for others to comment on. If you don't want someone to create an opinion, then don't post it.

You complain that your son is "More like a two or a three year old than a five year old." OUCH! You talk about the burden of raising two young children and you are not even in the same state with them!
You complain about the gifts that God has given you, I called you out on it, you agreed with me and then continued on complaining.
You complain about the price of baby items, and how much money it costs to raise a child, and instead of supporting reprimanding your wife for her wasteful spending, and curbing it yourself, you suggest the manufacturer lower it's prices! HELLO!
You try to ingratiate yourself in with each "group" on TOL, with your "gentlemanly" manner...but it's all very disingenuous.

I considered ignoring your rebuke of my earlier comment, and I decided I can comment any way I want on any issue. I'm not afraid of any reprecussion that you think you can hurdle my way. Wanna give me ANOTHER negative response, go ahead.
I'm tired of your pandering and plodding around TOL without any sense of Christ's true Word or Intentions.

Smack! :BRAVO:

The Edge
April 1st, 2005, 10:27 AM
I just didn't want to walk away from the thread with a sense of "unfinished business".
:baby:

Feel better Erin?

If you don't like me just leave me alone. Don't try to rally any more troops for an all out assault against me. It's not worth it. If you do, I may have to bring out the terror squad!!!!

I'll further explain myself later tonight. I've got forecasting to do, a car to rent, and a sweet southern barbecue place to go to.

godrulz
April 1st, 2005, 10:30 AM
Smack! :BRAVO:

Did the Edge talk about his personal situation publicly? Where? If this is not a public issue needing public rebuke, it should be dealt with privately between the two. Digging into personal matters could be petty and gossip, rather than wanting the good of another.

I thought this was about Zak's credibility. How did Edge man get drawn into the firing line?

Granite
April 1st, 2005, 10:32 AM
Erin's suspicious because Edge treats people with respect, even apostates like myself...:noid:

The Edge
April 1st, 2005, 10:47 AM
What credit is it to a Christian who only treats Christians with respect? Christ hung out with everyone!

Erin, it's pretty sad when the athiests come to my defense. Maybe that tells you something about who is exhibiting the attitude of Christ more... think about it please if you would. If you want to talk privatly, I am open to that. I'll listen.

godrulz
April 1st, 2005, 10:52 AM
I am also grieved that the atheists and apostates often are more civil in their relations, even though we tell them they are going to hell and are wrong. I have been defended by Zak and Wick from the slander of my brethren. I have never been told that I am a Christ-hater, demon-possessed, moron, 'go to hell' by non-Christians. I refuse to tolerate it from superspiritual Christians. This is odd. It is said that the Christian Army is the only one that shoots its wounded (Chuck Girard and is struggle with alcohol, etc...As far as I know, Chuck his no longer backslidden and is a worshipper/singer in the church and world for the glory of God).

The Edge
April 1st, 2005, 11:48 AM
Wickwoman,

Please clear out your PM inbox. I'm trying to send you something and it won't let me through because it says your box is full

;)

Edge

Granite
April 1st, 2005, 12:40 PM
I am also grieved that the atheists and apostates often are more civil in their relations, even though we tell them they are going to hell and are wrong. I have been defended by Zak and Wick from the slander of my brethren. I have never been told that I am a Christ-hater, demon-possessed, moron, 'go to hell' by non-Christians. I refuse to tolerate it from superspiritual Christians. This is odd. It is said that the Christian Army is the only one that shoots its wounded (Chuck Girard and is struggle with alcohol, etc...As far as I know, Chuck his no longer backslidden and is a worshipper/singer in the church and world for the glory of God).

I'd say apostates have less to prove, and a lot less to be defensive (and hostile) about.

the Sibbie
April 1st, 2005, 12:43 PM
What credit is it to a Christian who only treats Christians with respect? Christ hung out with everyone!

Erin, it's pretty sad when the athiests come to my defense. Maybe that tells you something about who is exhibiting the attitude of Christ more... think about it please if you would. If you want to talk privatly, I am open to that. I'll listen.Wait...are you saying Jesus had atheists running to his rescue?

wickwoman
April 1st, 2005, 01:44 PM
I thought for a long time how I should respond to The Edge and his "threats". Turbo and I talked about it a bit last night, and I reread this thread:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16851 (http://)

It reaffirmed to me that you are wrong and I am right. I can judge all I want, as long as I judge rightly under God's Word. The stuff you spew is inaccurate and misleading. Jesus mocked, taunted and used wit and sarcasm. He was a great orater and not a butt kissing fool.
You can think you're exemplifying Jesus all you want, but you are wrong. Please reconsider your idea of the "Nicer than God" philosophy.


One of the scriptures used was this: Matt 11:19

"The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and ‘sinners.’ But wisdom is proved right by her actions.”

This helped you justify calling someone “nicer than God?” How so? This is a verse you use to show how the Edge should be more offensive to non-Christians?

Here’s another one: Mat. 13:55-57

“Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things? And they took offense at him. "

So this is the scripture you use, as a Christian, to stand against one of your own – another Christian? Much like the relatives and friends of Jesus in his own hometown stood against him? Edge offended you by befriending sinners and you use this scripture to make yourself feel alright about the animosity he stirred up in you? This is the scripture you used to justify standing against one of your own? How?

Luke 14:3-4
John 5:8-16

O.K. these two passages are about how Jesus offended the religious elite, the law followers, by healing on the Sabbath. And this is similar to your situation with Lt. Edge how?


Mat. 10:14 – O.K. So if someone one won't listen to you, leave them alone. I’m all for that!

Mat. 15:12-14

Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. 11What goes into a man's mouth does not make him ‘unclean,’ but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him ‘unclean.’ Then the disciples came to him and asked, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?”

Again, Jesus offends the religious elite by trashing their rules and regulations. I’m still not seeing the comparison.

O.K. Erin, if even one of those verses is about being offensive to sinners, you let me know. So far, I’ve seen a bunch of verses that look like they mean the opposite of what you think they mean. If you have some point to make about the Edge based on these scriptures, let’s see it. Otherwise, I see smoke and mirrors. Worse than that, I see a very good counter argument contained in the very verses you think support you!

Zakath
April 1st, 2005, 02:03 PM
www.pagans.org is looking for you.
Why don't you trot on over there and set them all straight... ;)

JoyfulRook
April 1st, 2005, 02:08 PM
Why should he? You'd have so much fun!

Zakath
April 1st, 2005, 02:11 PM
Did the Edge talk about his personal situation publicly? Where? If this is not a public issue needing public rebuke, it should be dealt with privately between the two. Digging into personal matters could be petty and gossip, rather than wanting the good of another.Much of what is posted around here is in that realm... quite a number of our threads read like soap opera recaps...


I thought this was about Zak's credibility. How did Edge man get drawn into the firing line?Because it's more fun for some Christians to tear each other to pieces than to deal with people like me who stand as a witness to the ineffectiveness of their religion.

Zakath
April 1st, 2005, 02:12 PM
Wait...are you saying Jesus had atheists running to his rescue?
Wasn't Jesus accused of associating with the religiously unacceptable?

JoyfulRook
April 1st, 2005, 02:15 PM
She didn't ask that. She asked specifically about atheists.

wickwoman
April 1st, 2005, 02:15 PM
Wasn't Jesus accused of associating with the religiously unacceptable?

Why yes, I believe he was. See my post #95.

Zakath
April 1st, 2005, 02:18 PM
She didn't ask that. She asked specifically about atheists.Weren't infidels (which includes atheists) religious undesirables, so far as Jesus' peers were concerned?

the Sibbie
April 1st, 2005, 02:18 PM
Wasn't Jesus accused of associating with the religiously unacceptable?
Was he rejected by the "religiously unacceptable" specifically those that He hung around or those that followed him?

PureX
April 1st, 2005, 02:21 PM
Hmmm .... "religiously unacceptable" ... seems reasonable to me.

Zakath
April 1st, 2005, 02:22 PM
Was he rejected by the "religiously unacceptable" specifically those that He hung around or those that followed him?I seem to recall that quite a number of folks from a variety of viewpoints had trouble with Jesus and his teachings; folks from both groups you mention... :think:

the Sibbie
April 1st, 2005, 02:26 PM
I seem to recall that quite a number of folks from a variety of viewpoints had trouble with Jesus and his teachings; folks from both groups you mention... :think:That doesn't mean they came to His rescue.

Zakath
April 1st, 2005, 03:08 PM
That doesn't mean they came to His rescue.I think the gospel hints that the diverse crowds that followed him kept him from harm on more than one occasion.

Ecumenicist
April 1st, 2005, 04:05 PM
Yeah, I'm not necessarily losing any sleep over it, however, it can be a tough situation for me to come to terms with as a Christian.

God bless you. We all deal with the fallenness of this world in one way or another, but you were
on the front lines. Glad you're with us.

Dave

godrulz
April 1st, 2005, 05:04 PM
The Gospel is inherently offensive to our prideful rebellion and selfisness. The cross is an offense to man's feeble good works. Our message is offensive. This is not a license for us to be an offensive jerk building walls instead of bridges. "Nicer than God" must be put in context of wisdom, culture, and servant love and humility. Our message is love and mercy to the broken hearted and downtrodden. It is one of wrath and justice to those who harden their hearts, mock God, and reject truth and mercy. Jesus did not deal with every person the same way. He was 'nice' to as many people as He was harsh to (religious vs 'sinners').

The Edge
April 1st, 2005, 07:23 PM
Please watch later tonight for my response to Erin Marie and the charges she has brought forth against me. I am currently drafting my response.

The Edge
April 1st, 2005, 11:14 PM
“You’re headed right for the middle of the monster!” – The Perfect Storm

I'm going out on a limb here. I am going to put myself at risk and open myself up to many attacks for sure, but I want to address the false accusations Erin made about me. Before you all read, please realize that I spent almost 5 hours drafting this, correcting, editing, rewording, to make this not too harsh. I don't like to be falsely accused and judged, and I did not want to fall into the same trap. I wrote this all very carefully, and if anyone has a problem, please confront me privately. This is not in any way meant to destroy Erin's reputation, nor is it meant to open me up to have mine destroyed. This is not written out of a spirit of revenge. I'm just taking my fair chance to mount a defense before you all make up your mind about what was said here today. If I offend anyone, I apologize beforehand.

Deep breath..........


There's a difference between being nice and kissing the butt of anyone who will pay attention to you. I think "The Edge" is "nice" to everyone, as long as it suits his ego. First of all, you said I am only nice to those who pay attention to me. Well, I don’t exactly see myself going out of the way to be mean to someone who is not paying attention to me. If I recall correctly, I never intentionally thrashed anyone on this board for any reason except friendly theological debate, and even then did so in a professional manner. People who don’t pay attention to me, I just don’t pay attention to them. If I wronged anyone, I apologize for it. Someone let me know what I did, and I’ll repent and correct my action.
I don’t have an ego. I never had one. I don’t think highly of myself at all, and everywhere I go, people tell me I need more self-confidence. I am working very hard on that, as to be a leader in the Air Force I need to develop self-confidence. So I do not have an ego problem. And Erin Marie, you really don’t have any right or basis to make this accusation. Being nice to people is not “kissing their butts.” It’s how we’re supposed to be. Now that I saw the first post in that thread you posted, I see where you are coming from. But I don’t agree with it. Jesus was harsh and rude to people when they refused to believe Him and were hypocritical and stood directly against him. I did not stand directly against you. Erin, I’m a fellow brother in Christ! We’re not supposed to act like this!
I will admit I don’t know a ton about Bob Enyart, but I did a little research on him before posting this, and he does not have a completely favorable opinion from the Christian community. You attract more bees with honey than with vinegar. Yes, Jesus was harsh, to the Pharisees and hypocrites. The Pharisees were the holier than thou religious leaders of the day and Jesus was directing His harsh words at them. And he was harsh with stiff-necked fools who rejected Jesus and blasphemed God. But according to Erin Marie, we as Christians are allowed to do that to a fellow brother who treats everyone with respect. I’m glad I don’t go to her church where that philosophy is taught. According to her philosophy, we shouldn’t be nice or friendly with unbelievers. We should be mean and rude to them just for the sake of being mean and rude because Bob Enyart said Jesus was rude. In my research on Bob Enyart, I found that he was arrested in 1995 and 1999 and fined thousands of dollars misdemeanor child abuse for beating his 7 year old stepson with a belt until he had bruises, welts, and bleeding skin, for refusing to take a shower! He was unremorseful, even though he did it against the wishes of the boy’s mother. After serving the jail term and paying the fine he had to go to a parenting class and go for psychological evaluation. He believes democracy is the worst form of government and has written a chilling account of how the country should be run if it were run by Christians under a constitutional monarchy. He also believes OT law is still valid just as it was in the OT, which stands against the words of Christ. That is certainly someone I would not want to follow. Well if I was an unbeliever, I would never want to be a Christian if that is how I saw them act. Erin Marie is equating me to a Pharisee, unholy and profane, murderers of fathers and mothers, manslayers, fornicators, sodomites, and kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and anything counter to sound doctrine (1 Tim. 1:8-10) and I never exhibited any pharisaic behavior toward anyone. I came to this board (which I must say is by far the best board I have ever been a part of). This is the first board where people welcomed me and did not gang up against me. This is the only board where I have made friends. Why? Because most people don’t judge me. They take me for what I am, and fellowship with me. If I have wronged anyone in any way, I truly apologize for it.
And before anyone attacks me on my thoughts on what I have seen of Bob Enyart thusfar, please refrain. My purpose in this post is to answer to Erin’s accusations, not to debate about Bob Enyart. I saw enough about him to enable me to posts here. I do not wish to discuss him further.


I thought for a long time how I should respond to The Edge and his "threats". Turbo and I talked about it a bit last night, and I reread this thread:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16851

It reaffirmed to me that you are wrong and I am right. I can judge all I want, as long as I judge rightly under God's Word. The stuff you spew is inaccurate and misleading. Jesus mocked, taunted and used wit and sarcasm. He was a great orater and not a butt kissing fool.
You can think you're exemplifying Jesus all you want, but you are wrong. Please reconsider your idea of the "Nicer than God" philosophy.
Erin Marie, this is disturbing to me for several reasons:
1) You have been ticked off by me for a long time. That is understandable if I did something wrong and was consistently doing something wrong. But I wasn’t. The only thing I did on this board consistently was be myself, be friendly, and just have open and honest communication, making friends along the way and enjoying fellowship. If that threatens you, then I think you have some issues in your brain to address. I am about as “threatening” as a little child. I would like you to cite what “threats” I made to you. I would be interested to hear how I “threatened” you. I don’t recall threatening anyone.
2) The fact that you felt the need to discuss me at length with Turbo the moderator behind my back. If you have a problem with me, come to me in private and I’ll talk to you openly about it. But all you did was accuse me of being an ungrateful complainer and then run into the arms of Turbo and badmouth me behind my back. That’s so middle school, Erin. And that is not how problems get solved. Just because you have a moderator for a buddy doesn’t mean you have the right to diss other members with the moderator.
3) You can judge, huh? That’s not what Jesus said. Matthew 7:1-5 “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgement you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” John 7:24 says “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgement.” You can’t do that on a board when you don’t know people. While Jesus forbade harsh, censorious judgement that self-righteous legalism promotes, He demanded the exercise of moral and theological discernment. (quote from John MacArthur). I don’t see “righteous judgement” coming from Erin Marie. I see someone who I rubbed the wrong way for whatever reason, lashing out because she feels she was wronged. And instead of constructively talking to me about it she went to a moderator, judged me behind my back, then came prancing back to this board to report her findings once backed up by a moderator. I pray for you Erin, that you learn what true righteous judgement is, that Christ is the only judge. I pray that you learn forgiveness. I had my ideas about you from the beginning, but I forgave you every day, didn’t talk to anyone about you, and I gave you a clean slate every day.


Secondly, I find fault with issues in your life that you yourself throw all around the board for others to comment on. If you don't want someone to create an opinion, then don't post it.

You complain that your son is "More like a two or a three year old than a five year old." OUCH! You talk about the burden of raising two young children and you are not even in the same state with them!
You complain about the gifts that God has given you, I called you out on it, you agreed with me and then continued on complaining.
You complain about the price of baby items, and how much money it costs to raise a child, and instead of supporting reprimanding your wife for her wasteful spending, and curbing it yourself, you suggest the manufacturer lower it's prices! HELLO!
You try to ingratiate yourself in with each "group" on TOL, with your "gentlemanly" manner...but it's all very disingenuous.

Erin, Erin, Erin. What am I going to do with you? The judgements just keep on coming. All I am doing is no different than a father coming into work and sharing stories with his coworkers about what his kids did, for amusement sometimes. It’s like “Hey Bill, wait till you hear what my boy did today….” That’s all, and that’s harmless. And hasn’t every parent been frustrated? That’s all this is; simple parental frustration, nothing more. Have you seen me with my kids? No. Have you seen how I act beyond text on a screen? No. Have you observed me and my family round the clock to make a true, accurate assessment of how I love my children? No. So you can’t talk. The bottom line is, people like to vent, and people like to listen to people vent. And if you go back and look at nearly every “complaint” thread I started, you will observe that I’m not complaining, but simply telling a story and then asking for advice or thoughts. And nearly everyone gave me advice, or shared helpful information. But to you I’m just a complainer. Erin, I’m not stupid. I know the Bible says do not grumble, but do everything with joy and gratitude (or something like that). I’m not complaining, I’m venting, and I’m telling stories. People liked to listen to other people’s stories. Sharing experiences, getting advice, knowing we’re all in the same boat.
And how can you get on my case for not being in the same state? I wasn’t apart from them most of the time! You can’t talk! I am here for only 3 months, on orders from the Air Force! I don’t want to be here any more than you want to listen to me talk! I want more than almost anything to be there with them, watching my adorable daughter get cuter and smarter by the minute.
And you accuse my wife of wasteful spending? Go back and reread. She is thrifty and money conscious. She always tries to get the best deals. My point, which you completely missed because you were too busy being mad at me, was that baby items are overpriced, and I think we could all enjoy a break in the costs of raising children. I realistically know it’s not going to happen, but can’t someone dream?
I ingratiate myself with each “group” on TOL? So you are admitting that TOL is cliqued? It is sad that clique’s form, and so I try to cross the boundaries, because I don’t want to be a part of any one clique, or a clique at all. I am here to fellowship. Talking to atheists does not mean I agree with them. And if an unbeliever goes as far as to be my friend, I’m not going to say “You’re heathen, I’m not going to be your friend because Jesus thinks I need to be rude to you.” So again, you have misjudged me. I try to be everyone’s friend. I have extended my hand in friendship to you nearly every day, and this is the thanks I get. If you don’t like me, that is fine. I can handle that. But you don’t have to lash out at me because I rubbed you the wrong way. Even back in my pet peeves thread, you mentioned that you don’t like it when anyone touches you. That tells me something; that you are overly cautious, hesitant to accept another’s love or friendship. Maybe that’s just your personality, or maybe something happened in the past that caused you to be that way. That is not for me to judge. But just because you don’t want my friendship doesn’t mean you have to try to destroy it for me with others on this board by publicly defaming me.
And I am proud to be a gentleman. There’s too few of us, and chivalry is dying because of that. If being a friendly, kind gentleman who doesn’t get harsh with people that upset him makes me bad, then I am guilty as charged. I will not intentionally be harsh or rude to people just because some people think I’m a butt kisser.


I considered ignoring your rebuke of my earlier comment, and I decided I can comment any way I want on any issue. I'm not afraid of any reprecussion that you think you can hurdle my way. Wanna give me ANOTHER negative response, go ahead.
I'm tired of your pandering and plodding around TOL without any sense of Christ's true Word or Intentions.
You should have ignored it. Looks like you started a fire you can’t put out. And now the forest is aflame, and you are in the middle of the inferno.
This is not just another negative response. I’m calling you on YOUR mistake, and I hope I can help you grow. You’re tired of me pandering and plodding around TOL without any sense of Christ’s true Word or intentions? Nothing could be further from the truth! I know Christ’s Word and intentions. You are misjudging me again, based on text on a screen. That is sad. You brought forth these charges in public, and nobody that I can see backed you up, except Turbo who you had to consult with behind my back. Looks like everyone came to my defense, which tells us something about whose character is more likely to win people over. Nothing more needs to be said there; the evidence is before you.
If you are tired of listening to me, why do you read my posts? That is what the ignore feature is for. You must be interested if you keep watching my posts, looking for something to publicly attack me on. If you had just placed me on your ignore list a while back, this would have never happened. And now look at what the atheists are saying, and other Christians are admitting it’s sad that we shoot our wounded and like to tear eachother to pieces. That’s not Christ’s love. That goes against Christ’s character. And if I saw people doing that I would not want to be a Christian.

Thank you for your time reading this. I’m not trying to rake you over the coals; I’m simply responding to the accusations you made against me.

And now for a few other comments…..


GODRULZ said in post 88
Did the Edge talk about his personal situation publicly? Where? If this is not a public issue needing public rebuke, it should be dealt with privately between the two. Digging into personal matters could be petty and gossip, rather than wanting the good of another.
I thought this was about Zak's credibility. How did Edge man get drawn into the firing line?
Well said. I got drawn into it because I rubbed someone the wrong way and they wanted to lash out. They don’t like me, they saw me making friends and it irked them.



SIBBIE in post 94
Wait...are you saying Jesus had atheists running to his rescue?
No. But if atheists are able to recognize the crudeness of Erin Marie’s behavior, then they see something about her character that is not consistent with Christ.

Well, that’s all I have to say. I hope this was not too long or mean; I am not a mean person. And I would never come on here and just attack someone out of the blue, whether I feel they wronged me or not. I posted all this because it is fair for me to have a chance to argue my case, and to clarify the inaccurate opinion Erin has of me. I should have a chance to defend myself so you all can make up your mind about me hearing both sides of the story.

In Christ,

Dave

PS - I do like Erin - don't get the wrong idea. She just had wrong judgements about me. I still like Erin. She seems easy to like most of the time :)

PS - Wow....I haven't written anything this long and insightful since college! :thumb:

ApologeticJedi
April 2nd, 2005, 01:15 AM
Hey Edge,

I agree with you to the extent that sometime people gravitate towards extremes, and the overly harsh extremes are just as bad as the overly nice. Jesus wasn’t like that. Jesus wasn’t overly harsh, or overly nice. Jesus had compassion whenever it was called for, and was harsh whenever that was called for. However I noticed what might be termed "self-righteous drivel: in your posts. Let me point it out for you and see if you can't see how this looks to an outsider to your conversation:



The Edge on “Judging.”
Face One: “I don't like to be falsely accused and judged, and I did not want to fall into the same trap.”

Face Two: “I will admit I don’t know a ton about Bob Enyart, but I did a little research on him before posting this, and he does not have a completely favorable opinion from the Christian community…. He was unremorseful, even though he did it against the wishes of the boy’s mother….He also believes OT law is still valid just as it was in the OT”

Face One <revisted>: “John 7:24 says “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgement.” You can’t do that on a board when you don’t know people.”

Face Two <revisted>: “You should have ignored it. Looks like you started a fire you can’t put out. And now the forest is aflame, and you are in the middle of the inferno. This is not just another negative response. I’m calling you on YOUR mistake…”


“I don’t want to be falsely accused, but let me tell you how bad someone is that I don’t know anything about…..”
Beside the falsehoods about someone else, doesn’t that about sum up what you said?


*****


The Edge on “Attcking People
Face One: “Jesus was harsh and rude to people when they refused to believe Him and were hypocritical and stood directly against him. I did not stand directly against you. Erin, I’m a fellow brother in Christ! We’re not supposed to act like this!”

Face Two: “I will admit I don’t know a ton about Bob Enyart, but I did a little research on him before posting this, and he does not have a completely favorable opinion from the Christian community”

Face One <revisted>: “… and badmouth me behind my back. That’s so middle school, Erin”

Face One <revisted>: “I am not a mean person. And I would never come on here and just attack someone out of the blue, whether I feel they wronged me or not”


Enyart is a fellow poster on this website, and a friend to some on here. Did he stand directly against you when you were harsh and rude towards him? When you attacked him because he doesn’t think a democracy is a great form of government (something our founding fathers agreed with him on – they just had poor ideas about how to avoid it), was it because he stood against you? I thought we aren’t supposed to act like this? Edge, you don't seem to like playing by your own rules.


*****


The Edge on “Fair Game”
Face One: “That is certainly someone I would not want to follow. Well if I was an unbeliever, I would never want to be a Christian if that is how I saw them act.”

Face Two: “And before anyone attacks me on my thoughts on what I have seen of Bob Enyart thusfar, please refrain. My purpose in this post is to answer to Erin’s accusations, not to debate about Bob Enyart. I saw enough about him to enable me to posts here. I do not wish to discuss him further.”

Face Three: “And I am proud to be a gentleman. There’s too few of us, and chivalry is dying because of that.”


You mean you want to slam the friend of many people here and then not have to answer for your own post. You’d like the cheap shots to go un-countered if at all possible. And you'd like us to think of you as chivalrous in the meantime. :think:


The Edge,

I’m sorry if this rebuke is painful for you, but you stick to clichés that say you should attract bees with honey, yet God says [Proverbs 28:23 “He that rebuketh a man afterwards shall find more favor than he that flattereth with the tongue.” I don’t know anything about Erin and your debate, I just had the misfortunate of reading your diatribe and I’m hoping that in the future you can pick a face (or position) and hold to it.

PureX
April 2nd, 2005, 07:19 AM
ApologeticJedi,

I would just like to point out here, that posting some facts about Enyart's past is just posting some facts about Enyart's past. It's not passing judgment to post facts about someone. If you think those facts make Enyart look bad, it's YOU who is passing that judgment, not the person who posted the facts.

Edge,

I would also like to point out that everyone has an ego. Our ego is the idea we hold in our minds, of ourselves. If our idea of ourselves is that we have little value relative to other human beings, that doesn't mean we don't have an ego. It simply means that our ego is biased negatively toward ourselves. Also, humility is the condition of having an unbiased ego; that is that our idea of ourselves is not biased to the positive nor the negative, but is simply accurate and realistic. Humility is the goal regarding ego, not that we eliminate it.

The Edge
April 2nd, 2005, 08:01 AM
A couple quick responses before I go to six flags for the day....

Apologetic Jedi,

You mean you want to slam the friend of many people here and then not have to answer for your own post. You’d like the cheap shots to go un-countered if at all possible. And you'd like us to think of you as chivalrous in the meantime.
I never said this. I fully expect to answer for my post. I have the right to answer when false charges are brought against me. I don't gravitate towards extremes. I rebuke those that need rebuke, I am not nice literally all the time to everyone. But what point is it to be harsh to someone just because we feel like it? Do I need to be harsh wih atheists just because of their theological stance? I don't think so. They did nothing bad to me. If they directly disrrespect me, then I would get less nice. I am not "extremely nice." People who know me in person will attest to that.
My previously stated purpose was not to attack Bob. I don't know too much about him. I looked into what Erin believed, and in my opinion did not agree with it, so I discredited the source to explain why. I'm not here to debate Bob or about Bob. This issue is not about Bob. No self-righteousness intended. Thank you for your thoughts.

PureX,
I understand what you are saying about ego. When I said I have no ego, I meant I don't have a big one, nor do I have a very low one either. It's pretty neutral, and I'm not out there trying to do things to boost my ego. Erin says I will be friendly with anyone to boost my ego, and that is simply false.

Mr. 5020
April 2nd, 2005, 08:10 AM
It took you 5 hours to write that!

:darwinsm:

Mr. 5020
April 2nd, 2005, 08:10 AM
The fact that you felt the need to discuss me at length with Turbo the moderator behind my back.Aren't turbo and em related somehow?

erinmarie
April 2nd, 2005, 09:33 AM
Aren't turbo and em related somehow?
Thanks for pointing that out Mr....
Actually, this is the only part of "the edge's" post I will respond to. Considering I don't find any other part worth it. He said just what I thought he would, and also PM'd me to point out that he had made his very important post. I still stick to what I said in my original post.

But I do want to say that Turbo is my brother in law and long time friend. I also consider him as important to me as if he were my own big brother, he had a lot to do with my coming to Christ and understanding God's Law. I do think it's silly to think I wouldn't talk to him about something that's on my chest. And I will continue to do so. :up:

Zakath
April 2nd, 2005, 02:31 PM
My, my ... over 100 posts in this thread and almost a third of them are actually on topic!

:chuckle:

Remember Edge, we tried to warn you... ;)

Zakath
April 2nd, 2005, 02:33 PM
She didn't ask that. She asked specifically about atheists.
Context, laddie, context... Atheists are considered religiously unacceptable people by the Jews.

The Edge
April 2nd, 2005, 03:57 PM
zakath, thanks for warning me. I don't need to be warned about the likes of Erin Marie. She won't ruin my experience on this board. Since she has dismissed what I said, I will dismiss what she said. I will wipe her slate clean and my offer for friendship will still stand. If she rejects it, so be it. I'll live.

I did not think she would respond to my response. She hides behind words like "it's not worth it" which often means things like "I don't know what else to say" or "I'm not going to bother getting into a throw-down with The Edge." I didn't really want to throw my gloves down with Erin anyway. As far as I am concerned, I defended myself and it's over. I move on with my life. My response was not only for her, but for all the other readers to see that her accusations were wrong and I was not going to sit idly and take them.

Erin and Turbo are friends and relatives. That's cool. But, Turbo is also a part of this board's management, and that places him in a position of great responsibility. Therefore, he must not be allowed to show bias toward members who happen to be a part of his family. If he wants to come down on me and punish me because I upset his "friend," then that is not fair board management. But since Turbo has remained silent and not approached me, I have no problem at all with him. If Erin Marie went to talk to a friend about me that was not a part of the board, that would have been better. Oh well, life goes on.

And I PM's Erin Marie just to make sure my response wasn't lost in the activity of the thread. I have no idea if I have been placed on her ignore list or not, so I just wanted her to have a chance to see it. :)
d

Zakath
April 2nd, 2005, 04:55 PM
Well, you've done what any reasonable person would do... :D

Have a good evening. :thumb:

The Edge
April 2nd, 2005, 05:00 PM
Rock on, Z-man.

Ecumenicist
April 2nd, 2005, 05:03 PM
I was unaware of Enyart's legal history. After I verified it for myself, I was hurt, angry, sad. And then I
left the PC and went and hugged my kids. I also played basketball and soccer with them, and went out
and bought them milkshakes.

We live in a fallen world, from which no one is immune. There, but by the Grace of God go I.

Dave

julie21
April 2nd, 2005, 05:04 PM
I think that who individuals want to talk to throughout the board is up to the individual, and they should not be judged against for merely being civil to others. If a Christian converses with an atheist about Christ, the time of day or the weather, they should be free to do that without condemnation. If what the Edge is doing is wrong in the eyes of the Lord, he will no doubt find this out one glorious day, as we all will be judged for how we treated our fellow man, Christian, atheist, agnostic, sinner, whatever. Or, if it was noticed by others that he was beginning to slip into their way of non-belief, I am sure that he would be shown this in a brotherly Christian way. Until then, I am sure that The Edge is a prayerful person, and has/will look to the Lord for guidance in what he should do in this matter.
If Christians only spoke to Christians, there would not be much growth in the Lord's body, and we would not be doing the Lord's work.

Zakath
April 2nd, 2005, 05:06 PM
Nicely put, Julie. :thumb:

The Edge
April 2nd, 2005, 08:00 PM
Dave Miller,
Refering to post #123, you sound like a good father. Good for you for verifying it on your own. Better to see it with your own eyes than just take the words of a fellow man for unverified truth.

Julie,
Referring to post #125, you wrote that very well (and I am not just saying that because I'm involved). You are really telling what I believe to be the truth there.

TE

PureX
April 2nd, 2005, 08:02 PM
I was unaware of Enyart's legal history. After I verified it for myself, I was hurt, angry, sad. And then I
left the PC and went and hugged my kids. I also played basketball and soccer with them, and went out
and bought them milkshakes.

We live in a fallen world, from which no one is immune. There, but by the Grace of God go I.

DaveI like you, Dave.

wickwoman
April 4th, 2005, 07:21 AM
My, my ... over 100 posts in this thread and almost a third of them are actually on topic!


Right, right, this is my thread and I want to say, oh yeah, about Zakath:

He's nice.
He's smart.
He's organized.

What else? PM me anything else I should know and I'll share ;)

wickwoman
April 4th, 2005, 07:23 AM
I was unaware of Enyart's legal history. After I verified it for myself, I was hurt, angry, sad. And then I
left the PC and went and hugged my kids. I also played basketball and soccer with them, and went out
and bought them milkshakes.

We live in a fallen world, from which no one is immune. There, but by the Grace of God go I.

Dave

That's it, I definitely need to start a thread about my friend Dave Miller. Of course, he would be so embarassed. He's very humble you know. :third:

Zakath
April 4th, 2005, 08:40 AM
Quiet.........is it the calm before the storm?Or everyone is worn out after the recent exchanges...

We'll see, I suppose. :think:

The Edge
April 4th, 2005, 10:04 PM
Well, it's been 72 hours since my huge post #111, and still I hear no word of these "threats" I made. Just as I had foreseen, there aren't any.

Carry on. :)

Turbo
April 5th, 2005, 07:47 PM
My previously stated purpose was not to attack Bob. I don't know too much about him. I looked into what Erin believed, and in my opinion did not agree with it, so I discredited the source to explain why.
Wouldn't it be better to respond to the points you disagree with from the article with rather than resort to a fallacious ad hominem argument? Especially when doing so makes you guilty of exactly what you charged erin with, as ApologeticJedi pointed out?

By the way, I brought up the "Nicer than God" thread to Erin after reading these statements of yours:

I'll be nice to everyone because that is what my Lord teaches us to do.

...

Jesus won people over by being nice and spending time with them and not by argueing with them and fighting. Some of your later posts indicate that you might not really believe these things. Could you clarify?

From your Enyart exposé:

He also believes OT law is still valid just as it was in the OT, which stands against the words of Christ. Actually Enyart believes that while the Body of Christ is not under the Law, God has given governments the responsibility to appropriately punish all criminals (whether they are believers or not). Some OT laws, like keeping the sabbath and abstaining from eating "unclean" meats, were symbolic ordinances that were exclusively for Israel. Other laws, like those forbidding murder, rape, and theft, are based on morality and should be enforced by all governments. We should be diligent to rightly divide God's word.

As for Jesus, He upheld the entire OT Law during His earthly ministry.


"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:17-20

As for spanking and democracy, those are great topics that we could discuss if you're up for it.

The Edge
April 5th, 2005, 08:05 PM
No clarification needed. Reread, and think about it. It'll make sense to you eventually. Let go of that "nicer than God" stuff and take a close look with no preconceived notions about how Jesus treated people. Then, as you deal with people, think of what you would want Jesus catching you doing if He came back today.

Turbo tries to take us away from the topic at hand. But Bob Enyart, spanking, democracy, and OT law are not the key issues. Perhaps later a discussion on them, but not now. That's not the point.

Reread my post about your role as a moderator.

As far as I'm concerned, this issue is closed, and you are not involved. I will speak no more of it, unless Erin wants to chat about anything.

Turbo
April 5th, 2005, 08:24 PM
No clarification needed. Reread, and think about it. I see your early posts which I quoted above, where you say that Jesus was always nice to everybody. Then I see posts where you acknowledge that Jesus was indeed not nice to certain people when appropriate.


Turbo tries to take us away from the topic at hand. But Bob Enyart, spanking, democracy, and OT law are not the key issues.You brought them up.


Perhaps later a discussion on them, but not now. That's not the point. Right. The point was to attempt to smear a fellow Christian whom you don't even know.


Reread my post about your role as a moderator.Reread erinmarie's post on my role as her brother-in-law. If you have a problem with me as a moderator, feel free to take it up with Knight.


As far as I'm concerned, this issue is closed, and you are not involved. I will speak no more of it, unless Erin wants to chat about anything.How convenient for you.

The Edge
April 5th, 2005, 08:30 PM
Turbo, leave it alone. She smeared me, and she smeared me big time. She does not even know me. So how can you get on my case for smearing her, when she made all those horrid judgements about me? Don't defend her. She has no right any more than I do. Just cus she's your sister in law doesn't mean you have to take sides. You got to admit, she was out of line.

Now I ask you again to leave it alone. Just because you're a moderator doesn't mean you are always right. I have no problem with you or Erin anymore. I'll accept her apology at any time. And as I said in my other posts, if I offended her I am sorry.

SOTK
April 5th, 2005, 09:41 PM
I think that who individuals want to talk to throughout the board is up to the individual, and they should not be judged against for merely being civil to others. If a Christian converses with an atheist about Christ, the time of day or the weather, they should be free to do that without condemnation. If what the Edge is doing is wrong in the eyes of the Lord, he will no doubt find this out one glorious day, as we all will be judged for how we treated our fellow man, Christian, atheist, agnostic, sinner, whatever. Or, if it was noticed by others that he was beginning to slip into their way of non-belief, I am sure that he would be shown this in a brotherly Christian way. Until then, I am sure that The Edge is a prayerful person, and has/will look to the Lord for guidance in what he should do in this matter.
If Christians only spoke to Christians, there would not be much growth in the Lord's body, and we would not be doing the Lord's work.

:thumb:

I haven't completely kept up with this whole thread, but I have read a little. I agree with Julie in that there is no reason why Christians can not converse or have friendships with non-believers. I have a few friends who are non-believers. I have learned a lot from them and I pray that they have learned a lot from me. As a Christian, I do think it's important that we don't give our non-believing friends the wrong idea. It's important that we don't compromise our belief in Christ nor God's Word for the sake of friendships or for being accepted. If we do this, we're doing more harm than good.

The Edge,

One thing I have noticed in this thread is that you haven't dropped it. As Christians, once we publicly confront eachother on differences or wrongs, I think we should drop it. It seems to me that Erin Marie has done this. I think after you confront a brother and sister, the rest is up to God.

In Christ,

SOTK

The Edge
April 5th, 2005, 09:53 PM
In humility I have retracted my recent posts drawing Erin out for an apology. She can do so at any time in public or in private but I won't force. I don't mean to antagonize. The bottom line is she was wrong and was called on it.

All is forgiven as far as I'm concerned. But I still do not agree with her or Turbo.
I have no hard feelings. I just think it's right to give an apology when you hurt someone's feelings. I don't know how someone can profess to be a Christian and be like that. Again, sorry for my part of dragging it out. Was just trying to get my apology, that's all. :)

wickwoman
April 6th, 2005, 06:41 AM
O.K., all "non-Christians," gather together in a little circle for a pep talk:

*whispering* Zak, Granite, Purex, anyone else here: I have no problem whatsoever with you guys being nice to any of the Christians on this website, just don't sell out. ;)

O.K. break! *clap*

Zakath
April 6th, 2005, 06:46 AM
O.K., all "non-Christians," gather together in a little circle for a pep talk:

*whispering* Zak, Granite, Purex, anyone else here: I have no problem whatsoever with you guys being nice to any of the Christians on this website, just don't sell out. ;)

O.K. break! *clap*
:BRAVO:

Glad you approve... :chuckle:

Frank Ernest
April 6th, 2005, 06:52 AM
O.K., all "non-Christians," gather together in a little circle for a pep talk:

*whispering* Zak, Granite, Purex, anyone else here: I have no problem whatsoever with you guys being nice to any of the Christians on this website, just don't sell out. ;)

O.K. break! *clap*
Define "sell out." --in a nice way, of course. :D

Zakath
April 6th, 2005, 06:56 AM
Define "sell out." --in a nice way, of course. :D:confused: Context???

Granite
April 6th, 2005, 07:24 AM
O.K., all "non-Christians," gather together in a little circle for a pep talk:

*whispering* Zak, Granite, Purex, anyone else here: I have no problem whatsoever with you guys being nice to any of the Christians on this website, just don't sell out. ;)

O.K. break! *clap*

:chuckle:

Don'tcha worry, I'll keep the non-faith.

erinmarie
April 6th, 2005, 07:53 AM
Originally Posted by julie21
I think that who individuals want to talk to throughout the board is up to the individual, and they should not be judged against for merely being civil to others. If a Christian converses with an atheist about Christ, the time of day or the weather, they should be free to do that without condemnation. If what the Edge is doing is wrong in the eyes of the Lord, he will no doubt find this out one glorious day, as we all will be judged for how we treated our fellow man, Christian, atheist, agnostic, sinner, whatever. Or, if it was noticed by others that he was beginning to slip into their way of non-belief, I am sure that he would be shown this in a brotherly Christian way. Until then, I am sure that The Edge is a prayerful person, and has/will look to the Lord for guidance in what he should do in this matter.If Christians only spoke to Christians, there would not be much growth in the Lord's body, and we would not be doing the Lord's work.


SOTK:

I haven't completely kept up with this whole thread, but I have read a little. I agree with Julie in that there is no reason why Christians can not converse or have friendships with non-believers. I have a few friends who are non-believers. I have learned a lot from them and I pray that they have learned a lot from me. As a Christian, I do think it's important that we don't give our non-believing friends the wrong idea. It's important that we don't compromise our belief in Christ nor God's Word for the sake of friendships or for being accepted. If we do this, we're doing more harm than good.

The Edge,

One thing I have noticed in this thread is that you haven't dropped it. As Christians, once we publicly confront eachother on differences or wrongs, I think we should drop it. It seems to me that Erin Marie has done this. I think after you confront a brother and sister, the rest is up to God.

In Christ,

SOTK

I wanted at first repost my original post, which has nothing to do with the conversation “the edge” had been having with any of the “unbelievers”. I agree with both SOTK and Julie, and also state that I am very fond of the fellowship I have had with Zakath in the past. He is a wise man, and good in essence, he is just not saved by the Grace of God, and should be. (Just thought I’d add that, being that this is the “Zakath is Genuine” thread)
I have decided however, not to repost the original post, just because I feel that Apologetic Jedi had responded to “the edge” in a manner I saw as accurate, and I had nothing to add.

erinmarie
April 6th, 2005, 07:56 AM
Turbo, leave it alone. She smeared me, and she smeared me big time. She does not even know me. So how can you get on my case for smearing her, when she made all those horrid judgements about me? Don't defend her. She has no right any more than I do. Just cus she's your sister in law doesn't mean you have to take sides. You got to admit, she was out of line.

Now I ask you again to leave it alone. Just because you're a moderator doesn't mean you are always right. I have no problem with you or Erin anymore. I'll accept her apology at any time. And as I said in my other posts, if I offended her I am sorry.

I certainly will not apologize to you, especially after slamming Turbo for his imput. He's obviously not just defending me here, he has made many valid points. Smear, smear, smear. Bla, Bla, Bla.
I've already pointed out where I take offense with you, "the edge". I said it loud and clear in my first post, which I also stated I stand by in it's entirety. I'm absolutely not offended by anything you said to me in any earlier posts except for one big thing. I am absolutely offended that you would address Turbo in such a scathing matter. He was hardly defending me in the first place! He was merely pointing out the falacy of your ad hominom argument. And I find no fault in jumping to the defense of a relative or friend, if I found that you were in an argument with Lucky even, and I agreed with Lucky, I would defend him to the best of my ability.

And I was not out of line in the least. Like I said before, I stick to my original post.

The Edge
April 6th, 2005, 11:06 AM
Stick to it then, if you must. You're wrong, and you made false accusations. If you still feel you can truthfully stand by them, so be it. But, you are wrong. I know it, God knows it, and nearly everyone else knows it. But I'm letting it go now. This is my final post on this matter. Maybe I didn't need to slam Turbo. It really does not involve him. I apologize to Turbo. He's probably jumping to your defense because he's your relative and friend, and because both of you subscribe to that "nicer than God" stuff. But that stuff is not the issue. As I stated before, and still stand by with absolute firmness, you accused me falsely, judged me, and were wrong. End of story. You won't apologize, so be it. This matter should finally be laid to rest. But if you ever try that again, rest assured I will defend myself tenfold. You won't ruin this awesome board for me with your horrible false accusations.


"The Edge"

drbrumley
April 6th, 2005, 11:21 AM
I was unaware of Enyart's legal history. After I verified it for myself, I was hurt, angry, sad. And then I
left the PC and went and hugged my kids. I also played basketball and soccer with them, and went out
and bought them milkshakes.

We live in a fallen world, from which no one is immune. There, but by the Grace of God go I.

Dave

What's this about?

The Edge
April 6th, 2005, 11:22 AM
It's about Bob Enyart and his conviction for child abuse in the late 90s.

drbrumley
April 6th, 2005, 11:25 AM
I apologize to Turbo. He's probably jumping to your defense because he's your relative and friend, and because both of you subscribe to that "nicer than God" stuff.
"The Edge"

:darwinsm: Turbo is "nicer than God" ?

Man I don't know what board your watching.

drbrumley
April 6th, 2005, 11:26 AM
It's about Bob Enyart and his conviction for child abuse in the late 90s.


What about it?

The Edge
April 6th, 2005, 11:26 AM
Some Bob Enyart thread that Erin posted earlier....page 7 or 8 I think.

drbrumley
April 6th, 2005, 11:28 AM
Some Bob Enyart thread that Erin posted earlier....page 7 or 8 I think.

Ok, you take issue with this conviction? You have brought it up. Is there a reason why?

The Edge
April 6th, 2005, 12:58 PM
Reread my post

drbrumley
April 6th, 2005, 03:21 PM
Thanks for the good rep Zakath. Even though it is supposed to be a bad rep, I will consider the source who gave it.

You still can't get over getting your butt whipped by Enyart in your debate with him.

The Edge
April 6th, 2005, 03:28 PM
What debate was that, between Enyart and Zakath?

Turbo
April 6th, 2005, 03:52 PM
What debate was that, between Enyart and Zakath?
Does God Exist? - Battle Royale VII - Bob Enyart vs. Zakath (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7709)

The Edge
April 6th, 2005, 04:16 PM
Ahh....I never looked at the Battle Royales yet. Maybe I'll check it out.

Turbo
April 6th, 2005, 04:44 PM
:up:

Zakath
April 6th, 2005, 06:27 PM
Thanks for the good rep Zakath. Even though it is supposed to be a bad rep, I will consider the source who gave it.Are you implying that I'm contrary?!

:chuckle:


You still can't get over getting your butt whipped by Enyart in your debate with him.And you still can't get over the fact that your precious St. Bob the Broadcaster agreed to debate an anonymous Internet persona... all for the opportunity to line his pockets by publishing the debate. You people are pathetic...

:darwinsm:

ApologeticJedi
April 6th, 2005, 07:45 PM
PureX said: I would just like to point out here, that posting some facts about Enyart's past is just posting some facts about Enyart's past. It's not passing judgment to post facts about someone. If you think those facts make Enyart look bad, it's YOU who is passing that judgment, not the person who posted the facts.


I agree. Posting facts is just that, even if the facts are falsehoods – even as some of Edge’s post was. However, those that read Edge’s post got more than just facts didn’t they. They got to hear how Edge believes “That is certainly someone I would not want to follow. Well if I was an unbeliever, I would never want to be a Christian if that is how I saw them act.” Don’t get me wrong, I think Edge has the right to judge, but for you to pretend that those types of statements aren’t judgment leaves me wondering what you think a judgement is?

My main point was about Edge being two-faced – telling someone they shouldn’t judge and the doing the same himself, then calling her a hypocrite, and himself chivalrous. --- It made me laugh at least.

ApologeticJedi
April 6th, 2005, 07:50 PM
I said: You mean you want to slam the friend of many people here and then not have to answer for your own post. You’d like the cheap shots to go un-countered if at all possible. And you'd like us to think of you as chivalrous in the meantime.

Edge said I never said this. I fully expect to answer for my post.

Well, edge that’s not exactly what you said to begin with. You said 1) it’s wrong to make accusations without knowing someone; then 2) you made several accusations with some falsehoods mixed in with some truth, and then 3) you claimed that we shouldn’t bother bringing it up because you didn’t want to talk about it. I’ll admit I phrased it in a different way than you did. I cut out the fluff from your post, and whittled it down to the impression you left me and likely others with.

I agree that you have the right to answer false charges. I’m referring to your two-faced and hypocritical approach of telling someone they are a bad person for doing exactly what you did, and then telling us that you were actually “chivalrous” despite the current evidence to the contrary.

ApologeticJedi
April 6th, 2005, 07:56 PM
And you still can't get over the fact that your precious St. Bob the Broadcaster agreed to debate an anonymous Internet persona... all for the opportunity to line his pockets by publishing the debate. You people are pathetic...

Zakath, you have to be one of the ultimate sore-losers I've known. :baby:

I think he did plan on publishing the debate.... how is that a bad thing? I mean it's not like he twisted your arm to debate him, or to head for the hills when it became apparent you were over matched.

drbrumley
April 6th, 2005, 08:18 PM
AJ,

Bob made Zak :think:. When Zak refused to, he ran. Pretty simple.

The Edge
April 6th, 2005, 08:35 PM
Well, edge that’s not exactly what you said to begin with. You said 1) it’s wrong to make accusations without knowing someone; then 2) you made several accusations with some falsehoods mixed in with some truth, and then 3) you claimed that we shouldn’t bother bringing it up because you didn’t want to talk about it. I’ll admit I phrased it in a different way than you did. I cut out the fluff from your post, and whittled it down to the impression you left me and likely others with.

I agree that you have the right to answer false charges. I’m referring to your two-faced and hypocritical approach of telling someone they are a bad person for doing exactly what you did, and then telling us that you were actually “chivalrous” despite the current evidence to the contrary.
AJ,
I never told Erin she was a bad person. I would not do something like that. What she did was inconsistant with the pleasant character that I usually see her display.

The difference is simple: she made accusations and judgements based on assumptions she has made about me, my personality, and my motives based on very, very limited evidence. I made accusations at her based on exactly what I saw. I did not judge her personality or motives. I simply called her on her mistake, presented facts, and asked for an apology. She was trying to destroy my reputation on this board. I'm surprised she didn't try to use the rep system. And when I looked at the Bob Enyart thread she showed me, I read it, then I looked up Bob's credentials, and came across those child abuse charges and his bad radio ratings. So that is where I was coming from. Nothing two-faced about it. As for chivalry, I never lost respect for her as a lady, I never insulted her, called her names, or accused her of prancing around this board looking for sexual favors, as the word "pander" means. I never said I was tired of her or she had no right to be here, but she told me she was tired of me pandering around this board. That was out of line. My offer for friendship still stands, and always will. Again, not a two face.

This post is not to draw Erin out; it's to respond to AJ. I am not trying to continue because I said that as far as the issue was, it's over. Water over the dam.

drbrumley
April 6th, 2005, 08:42 PM
:darwinsm:

So you read Bob was convicted. And that shapes your opinion of him how?

You going to be like loser Zak and condemn Bob too?

The Edge
April 6th, 2005, 08:46 PM
I'm not condemning Bob. I'm just saying I disagree with him and chose not to follow him. I think it's a little ridonculous to bloody your kid because he wouldn't take a shower. That's a bit extreme. I'm all for spanking but that's too far. Especially when the mother is protesting. Parents have to be consistant and on the same page. If the child sees the parents fighting about how to punish, the kid has already won.

Turbo
April 6th, 2005, 08:51 PM
And you still can't get over the fact that your precious St. Bob the Broadcaster agreed to debate an anonymous Internet persona... all for the opportunity to line his pockets by publishing the debate. You people are pathetic...

:darwinsm:Knight owns the rights to Battle Royale VII, along with the rest of TOL's threads. If he had wanted to allow Bob to publish the debate and deny you the same privilege, he could have. But before BRVII even began, Knight graciously gave you the same rights to publish the finished debate as Bob was, so what's your problem? Don't pretend that anyone pulled a fast one on you. You can still publish the debate in its entirety if you so choose.

I bought a copy from Bob last week. :up: I would have bought the Zakath edition, but for some reason, you haven't publish it as of yet. You've never so much as had a link to the debate in your profile or your signature. :think:


From Bob's 9th round post:

Before this debate began, I requested from and offered to Zakath a reciprocal agreement by which either party could publish this Does God Exist? Battle Royale VII, which Zakath agreed to. I want to thank Zakath for his eight rounds, and express my concern that he has decided to forfeit these last two and thus the Battle itself. Regarding my concern for Zakath, Jesus Christ reinforced the Old Testament teaching that man’s rebellion against God is the great cause of human suffering. And since the world is filled with pain that we humans inflict upon one another, then Zakath’s lack of humility before God means that he is not part of the solution but part of the problem. And the problem includes the extraordinary heartache of human suffering and ruined lives. This is why Jesus spoke so much about punishment for unbelievers. Therein lies my concern.

...

Now, after round eight and the repeated deadline extensions offered to Zakath, Knight informs us that Zakath “is just fine,” but that he will not be finishing the Battle. Knight has called the battle “an official TKO” (technical knock out), stating that “Zakath has been knocked out in the 8th round.” We offered to be even more flexible, and Zakath has chosen not to accept that offer, preferring to quit, and indicating that he will be back on the boards soon. Just like old times!

And from Bob Enyart's 10th round post:

Who wins this Battle Royale VII on Does God Exist? Often in debates, both sides claim victory. In the Grandstands early in the debate I made a challenge to Zakath, acknowledging that we might both claim victory. I suggested that eventually we will reveal our own true opinions as the participants, as to whether we have won or not. One rule of thumb for discerning if an opponent really believes his own claim of victory is to see if he promotes the finished debate to a wider audience or not. If the one who claims victory puts a permanent link to the debate on his website or in his forum signature, or somehow attempts to publicize the contest in his own sphere of influence, then that is evidence that at least this opponent really does believe he won. On the other hand, if one side claims victory, but makes no effort to promote the completed debate, and even would rather everyone forget it ever occurred (Zakath, are you listening?), then that provides evidence that this opponent does not believe his own claim of victory. Knowing who truly believes he won or lost of course does not ultimately decide whether a certain opponent was right or wrong on the matter being debated, but if the debaters have significant experience in the subject, and one opponent believes his side lost (or showed poorly), that of course is of interest to those evaluating the debate. It appears obvious as Zakath has been posting casually on the boards recently, that he would rather we forget about the debate and just get on with life. (Zakath, I directly challenge you, put a link to BRVII in your signature!) And while the atheists in the Grandstands have proclaimed boldly all along that the atheist side was winning the debate and the theist side was offering no arguments whatsoever, I challenge you all collectively to promote this debate in your own sphere of influence. After all, if I offered nothing in evidence and Zakath so deftly refuted my arguments, then his abbreviated effort would easily outshine my lengthier one, and more so by his succinctness. So TheologyOnline.com atheists, you are challenged to link to this debate in your signatures. After all, it is probably your loyalty to Zakath that kept most of you from making a composite post for the tenth round, so why not publicize his work? Of course, I will promote the debate as I have said I would from the beginning, because I truly believe that the theist side won, while the actions of the atheists will speak louder than their words.

drbrumley
April 6th, 2005, 09:00 PM
I didn't hear anyone say follow him. And just for the record, no matter what Zakass says, Bob is just a minister who loves God and the Lord Jesus and patterns his life based on God's word. His conviction was based on this principal. The government chose to convict him, not God. So my friend, before you attempt to say really dumb things about someone and form opinions about a particular person, know the facts. This is twice now you entered into debates here without knowing a damn thing and it really makes you look stupid. Kind of like Zakath. And it is becoming tiresome.

Have a good night.

The Edge
April 6th, 2005, 09:03 PM
Think what you want, Doc.

julie21
April 6th, 2005, 09:13 PM
I The government chose to convict him, not God. So my friend, before you attempt to say really dumb things about someone and form opinions about a particular person, know the facts.
Have a good night.
One question dr...how can you tell that God hasn't chosen to 'convict' him? No-one can predict what jugement God will make on another on the Day of the Lord.
In this world, it is true that BE was convicted by the 'authority of the government'...it remains to be seen if he will be convicted or aquitted by the Authority who has the greatest power. For now, that's an unknown. It is a fact as stated that he was convicted by man, yet it is not a fact, as you state, that God hasn't chosen to convict him. The latter is merely your personal opinion.

drbrumley
April 6th, 2005, 09:16 PM
One question dr...how can you tell that God hasn't chosen to 'convict' him? No-one can predict what jugement God will make on another on the Day of the Lord.
In this world, it is true that BE was convicted by the 'authority of the government'...it remains to be seen if he will be convicted or aquitted by the Authority who has the greatest power. For now, that's an unknown. It is a fact as stated that he was convicted by man, yet it is not a fact, as you state, that God hasn't chosen to convict him. The latter is merely your personal opinion.

Does God go against His own word?

drbrumley
April 6th, 2005, 09:19 PM
And please tell me what crime was committed? Biblically speaking or man given.

The Edge
April 6th, 2005, 09:28 PM
We are supposed to submit to the government for it's God's ordained authority on earth, as long as it does not directly violate God's word.

Knight
April 6th, 2005, 09:36 PM
Are you implying that I'm contrary?!
And you still can't get over the fact that your precious St. Bob the Broadcaster agreed to debate an anonymous Internet persona... all for the opportunity to line his pockets by publishing the debate. You people are pathetic...

:darwinsm:So... Zakath's point here is what? Bob is a loser, because he agreed to debate me who is even a bigger loser????? :think:

drbrumley
April 6th, 2005, 09:41 PM
We are supposed to submit to the government for it's God's ordained authority on earth, as long as it does not directly violate God's word.

Ok, how did BE violate the government WITHOUT violating God's word?

Child abuse is a crime is it not? Child abuse is covered in the bible is it not?

Just because you don't have sense to dicipline your children, and when someone diciplines thier own, you have to form a negative opinion as Zak does on the subject, oh nevermind....
I have to ask though, what do you know about this case? Alot, next to nothing?

drbrumley
April 6th, 2005, 09:42 PM
So... Zakath's point here is what? Bob is a loser, because he agreed to debate me who is even a bigger loser????? :think:
:doh: That deserves a rep.

SOTK
April 6th, 2005, 09:46 PM
So... Zakath's point here is what? Bob is a loser, because he agreed to debate me who is even a bigger loser????? :think:

:darwinsm:

The Edge
April 6th, 2005, 09:54 PM
Ok, how did BE violate the government WITHOUT violating God's word?

Child abuse is a crime is it not? Child abuse is covered in the bible is it not?

Just because you don't have sense to dicipline your children, and when someone diciplines thier own, you have to form a negative opinion as Zak does on the subject, oh nevermind....
I have to ask though, what do you know about this case? Alot, next to nothing?

Doc you talk tough yet you failed to interpret what I wrote correctly.
We - are - supposed - to - submit - to - the - government - as - long - as - the - government - doesn't - tell - us - to - do - something - contrary - to - His - Word.

Got it? I didn't mean that Bob broke the law without violating the Word of God. Bob Enyart broke the law, and God tells us to obey the government so long as the government is not telling you to do something directly contrary to the Word of God.

drbrumley
April 6th, 2005, 10:04 PM
Doc you talk tough yet you failed to interpret what I wrote correctly.
We - are - supposed - to - submit - to - the - government - as - long - as - the - government - doesn't - tell - us - to - do - something - contrary - to - His - Word.

Got it? I didn't mean that Bob broke the law without violating the Word of God. Bob Enyart broke the law, and God tells us to obey the government so long as the government is not telling you to do something directly contrary to the Word of God.
Edge,

I'm just saying I disagree with him and chose not to follow him. I think it's a little ridonculous to bloody your kid because he wouldn't take a shower. That's a bit extreme. I'm all for spanking but that's too far. Especially when the mother is protesting. Parents have to be consistant and on the same page. If the child sees the parents fighting about how to punish, the kid has already won.

If it doesn't violate God's word, then how can you be in disagreement? Do you even think before you post? In all seriousness. I did intrept what you wrote correctly. You sir like to side step your way thru debates.Sounds like you say I meant to say this instead. Thats you.

Your 2nd quote is proof in the pudding.

The Edge
April 6th, 2005, 10:17 PM
The Word says "Do not provoke your children to anger."

The Edge
April 6th, 2005, 10:18 PM
Doctor,
Are you saying it is reasonable to beat your child until he bleeds for refusing to take a shower? If so, God help your kids if they really misbehave.

julie21
April 7th, 2005, 02:36 AM
Does God go against His own word?
...No He does not...NOW....
Would you like to answer my initial question...
"How do you, Mr Brumley, know that our Lord will not convict BE because of his actions on His day?"

drbrumley
April 7th, 2005, 02:50 AM
I answered your question. Since God doesnt go against His own word, then Bob then is not convicted. Case closed.

The Edge
April 7th, 2005, 05:32 AM
I folllow God and don't idolize men like Bob Enyart. Paul told us not to follow men, but Christ.

Regardless of whether Bob Enyart is convicted, I don't find enough credibility in hiim to follow him. That's all. He has a questionable past and a condescending style. I don't like it. I can have my opinion, and I don't condemn the man. Doc, if you can't handle the fact that I don't like him and won't follow him, oh well.

Turbo
April 7th, 2005, 06:47 AM
I follow God and don't idolize men like Bob Enyart.
Are you accusing anyone here of worshipping Bob Enyart as an idol?

Zakath
April 7th, 2005, 06:50 AM
Morning Turbo. :wave:

While The Edge is a Christian, which make it hard for we on the outside to be precisely certain what he means sometimes, my guess is that he was not using the term "idolize" in the religious sense.

Granite
April 7th, 2005, 07:12 AM
Doctor,
Are you saying it is reasonable to beat your child until he bleeds for refusing to take a shower? If so, God help your kids if they really misbehave.

Enyart took things too far but it galls his supporters to admit as much. It'd be a lot easier to say the man made a mistake, but since he personally refuses to do so it's no shock his accolytes toe the line, too.

Zakath
April 7th, 2005, 07:14 AM
I answered your question. Since God doesnt go against His own word, then Bob then is not convicted. Case closed.
IIRC, Enyart was tried, convicted and served jail time.

Or are you using some special religious meaning for the word "convicted"? :think:

The Edge
April 7th, 2005, 07:23 AM
Are you accusing anyone here of worshipping Bob Enyart as an idol?
I don't believe I accused anyone of "worshipping" him. Am I allowed to not like the man?

The Edge
April 7th, 2005, 07:27 AM
What I said is that Bob Enyart is questionable in my mind. I don't follow him because of what I saw, and the fierce devotion to him on this board is evident, and makes me wonder what's so great about him compared to other preachers. People defend him like he's this untouchable, amazing man and he's just a dude with a church and a radio show. That's all. I'm sure you all don't love John MacArthur, but that does not mean you judged him or that anyone who does read MacArthur "idolizes" him. The man (BE) made a mistake and did not repent for it as far as I can see. Maybe he did, and if he did, cool beans.

wickwoman
April 7th, 2005, 08:07 AM
Thanks for the good rep Zakath. Even though it is supposed to be a bad rep, I will consider the source who gave it.

You still can't get over getting your butt whipped by Enyart in your debate with him.

Maybe Zak doesn't like your little flag. :rolleyes:

julie21
April 7th, 2005, 08:18 AM
I answered your question. Since God doesnt go against His own word, then Bob then is not convicted. Case closed.
In your opinion...in my opinion, it's an unknowable situation until the End of the Age.
1 John 2 : 6 "He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he did." KJV
" Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did." NIV
Question...Would Jesus have beaten a child to that extent for refusing to take a shower?
Case closed

PureX
April 7th, 2005, 08:29 AM
Enyart took things too far but it galls his supporters to admit as much. It'd be a lot easier to say the man made a mistake, but since he personally refuses to do so it's no shock his accolytes toe the line, too.How could such an inerrant bible luminary have made a mistake? I mean, if he made a mistake in his behavior toward his own children, he might be making mistakes in his interpretation of scripture, and of course that just can't be!

wickwoman
April 7th, 2005, 09:06 AM
How could such an inerrant bible luminary have made a mistake? I mean, if he made a mistake in his behavior toward his own children, he might be making mistakes in his interpretation of scripture, and of course that just can't be!


:shocked:

Granite
April 7th, 2005, 09:07 AM
How could such an inerrant bible luminary have made a mistake? I mean, if he made a mistake in his behavior toward his own children, he might be making mistakes in his interpretation of scripture, and of course that just can't be!

:chuckle:

godrulz
April 7th, 2005, 09:51 AM
I answered your question. Since God doesnt go against His own word, then Bob then is not convicted. Case closed.


I do not know all the facts. It is possible Enyart crossed the line and the discipline was borderline abusive. If he is totally innocent, then he has not violated the Word and God does not go against it. If he was quilty of unbiblical and illegal discipline, then he is convicted in God's court and human courts (Rom. 13). The State is not always right. They think any spanking is abusive, which is contrary to the Word. If it was done in anger or left marks or was against a teenager, etc., then it is not defensible. This is somewhat subjective. We do not want to side with pop psychology that minimizes any discipline. We also do not want to hide behind the Bible and justify excessive force. There are Christians that are guilty of abuse. Not that Dobson is the end all and be all, but I suspect his expertise would question this case if it is true it was over a shower and left significant marks.

One should be careful to not assume a high profile leader can do no wrong or should not be held accountable if they cross the line. As a leader, it would be wiser to be more temperate and not open the door to false accusations or give credence to others who may not have self-control and use him as a justification for excessive force. The point can be made with one spank, not 3. Did he use his hand or an object. Objects are perceived as weapons and excessive abuse.

wickwoman
April 7th, 2005, 10:02 AM
Dear godrulz:

That's a very level headed approach. I agree!

The Edge
April 7th, 2005, 10:39 AM
I do not know all the facts. It is possible Enyart crossed the line and the discipline was borderline abusive. If he is totally innocent, then he has not violated the Word and God does not go against it. If he was quilty of unbiblical and illegal discipline, then he is convicted in God's court and human courts (Rom. 13). The State is not always right. They think any spanking is abusive, which is contrary to the Word. If it was done in anger or left marks or was against a teenager, etc., then it is not defensible. This is somewhat subjective. We do not want to side with pop psychology that minimizes any discipline. We also do not want to hide behind the Bible and justify excessive force. There are Christians that are guilty of abuse. Not that Dobson is the end all and be all, but I suspect his expertise would question this case if it is true it was over a shower and left significant marks.

One should be careful to not assume a high profile leader can do no wrong or should not be held accountable if they cross the line. As a leader, it would be wiser to be more temperate and not open the door to false accusations or give credence to others who may not have self-control and use him as a justification for excessive force. The point can be made with one spank, not 3. Did he use his hand or an object. Objects are perceived as weapons and excessive abuse.
I agree with this post.
To answer your question, Godrulz, Enyart took the 7 year old boy who was his stepson out to a shed and used a belt to beat the child until he had welts and was bleeding with broken skin, as the boy's mother protested the punishment.

I'm all for spanking; I use it myself. But not leaving marks, and the parents need to be united in how they deal with the children.

Enyart's kid not only got an excessively abusive beating, but his parents were not united; they fought amongst themselves. And the other important fact is that Enyart was unremorseful in court. So he crossed the line and does not think he made a mistake.

Nineveh
April 7th, 2005, 10:52 AM
I agree with this post.
To answer your question, Godrulz, Enyart took the 7 year old boy who was his stepson out to a shed and used a belt to beat the child until he had welts and was bleeding with broken skin, as the boy's mother protested the punishment.

Would you mind citing your source?

The Edge
April 7th, 2005, 11:02 AM
These articles are plastered all over the internet. Just google search bob enyart and you'll find it.

The Edge
April 7th, 2005, 11:02 AM
He also hired ACLU lawyers to defend him....the organization he usually is attacking. Interesting.....

Nineveh
April 7th, 2005, 11:06 AM
These articles are plastered all over the internet. Just google search bob enyart and you'll find it.

Really?

I've had to dig to get this (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17039) one.

Doesn't sound like you are being very accurate:


Enyart told WorldNetDaily that the ordeal began five years ago when he gave his stepson five swats on his backside -- swats that were later proven in court to be consistent with traditional disciplinary actions. Immediately afterwards, the stepson's older brother called their natural father, a police officer, who called the police. They arrived in front of Enyart's doorsteps within minutes and took pictures of the boy's backside as evidence.

At one point I was privy to the boy's testimony. I think you have an inaccurate picture of what happened.

wickwoman
April 7th, 2005, 12:04 PM
Oh, sure, if it's on Worldnetdaily. I has to be unbiased and correct :rolleyes:.

How about this:

APB News, New York, 18 June 1999

By Keith Coffman
GOLDEN, Colo. (APBNews.com)
AP

Probation officials sought to block Bob Enyart from appearing tonight on the Father's Day edition of ABC's Politically Incorrect because it would undermine Enyart's rehabilitation by giving him a national forum to justify his actions, despite his criminal conviction.

But Jefferson County Judge Charles Hoppin ruled that Enyart was not a public threat, and preventing him from traveling to California for the show would violate his First Amendment right to free speech.

Enyart, 40, was released from jail May 25 after serving a 60-day sentence for striking the 7-year-old boy several times with a belt for disobeying his mother. Evidence at the trial showed the blows raised three welts on the boy's buttocks.

. . .

On the show, Enyart frequently bashed the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which he has said helps guilty criminals go free and defends child pornographers.

But in a peculiar twist to his own case, Enyart enlisted two ACLU lawyers, Patrick Mulligan and Randy Canney, to argue his Constitutional rights to free speech were being violated.

Enyart was unavailable for comment, but the unusual alliance was not lost on his attorneys.

"The irony of it all is hilarious," Canney said.


Keith Coffman is an APBNews.com correspondent in Colorado.

Nineveh
April 7th, 2005, 12:24 PM
And that detailed what happened how?

wickwoman
April 7th, 2005, 12:34 PM
It confirmed the findings of the court were that he left marks.

It confirmed he used the ACLU to defend him.

The Edge
April 7th, 2005, 12:41 PM
I found a lot of articles about the same thing, and they all said that the boy bled and had several welts made by the belt, and he was taken out to a shed for the beating.

Nineveh
April 7th, 2005, 12:48 PM
It confirmed the findings of the court were that he left marks.

What spanking doesn't? Especially if pics are taken minutes afterwards.


It confirmed he used the ACLU to defend him.

Not for the case in question. But for appearing on a show.

Nineveh
April 7th, 2005, 12:48 PM
I found a lot of articles about the same thing, and they all said that the boy bled and had several welts made by the belt, and he was taken out to a shed for the beating.

Could you please give me one source for that? It's the second time you've said it and the second time I have asked.

Zakath
April 7th, 2005, 12:52 PM
Really?

I've had to dig to get this (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17039) one.

Perhaps you need a new search engine. A simple Google search of "Enyart" and "child" turned up the following five references pretty easily without any digging at all...
1. http://www.corpun.com/usdm9906.htm "Child abuser allowed to air views on discipline"
2. http://www.nospank.net/n-e81.htm "Abuse conviction won't keep Enyart off TV"
3. http://www.westword.com/issues/1999-12-16/news/feature_3.html "Thank God for Bob"
4. http://www.csindy.com/csindy/2000-02-02/cover.html "God Bless the Child"
5. http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/t1002922.htm "Bob Enyart allies himself with ACLU against Colorado Authorities who want to violate his free speech"


At one point I was privy to the boy's testimony. I think you have an inaccurate picture of what happened.And what did the boy say that was different from what is in the public record? :think:

The Edge
April 7th, 2005, 12:52 PM
found one in the denver post

Nineveh
April 7th, 2005, 01:01 PM
Perhaps you need a new search engine. A simple Google search of "Enyart" and "child" turned up the following five references pretty easily without any digging at all...
1. http://www.corpun.com/usdm9906.htm "Child abuser allowed to air views on discipline"
2. http://www.nospank.net/n-e81.htm "Abuse conviction won't keep Enyart off TV"
3. http://www.westword.com/issues/1999-12-16/news/feature_3.html "Thank God for Bob"
4. http://www.csindy.com/csindy/2000-02-02/cover.html "God Bless the Child"
5. http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/t1002922.htm "Bob Enyart allies himself with ACLU against Colorado Authorities who want to violate his free speech"

Which one supports "The Edge's" claims?


And what did the boy say that was different from what is in the public record? :think:

I'm not following your question.

Nineveh
April 7th, 2005, 01:02 PM
found one in the denver post

oh...ok... no link? No quote?

Zakath
April 7th, 2005, 01:14 PM
Which one supports "The Edge's" claims?I wasn't addressing Edge's claims. I was addressing your seeming inability to find anything about Enyart's child abuse conviction on the WWW.


I'm not following your question.Well now, there's something different... :chuckle:

You claimed you were "privy to the boy's testimony" and that Edge's impression about Enyart was incorrect based on that knowledge.

All I asked was how does the "privy knowledge" you have contradict what's on the public record?

Nineveh
April 7th, 2005, 02:18 PM
I wasn't addressing Edge's claims. I was addressing your seeming inability to find anything about Enyart's child abuse conviction on the WWW.

Most of those links were about corporal punishment pro/con. Little to do with the info I was asking for.


You claimed you were "privy to the boy's testimony" and that Edge's impression about Enyart was incorrect based on that knowledge.

All I asked was how does the "privy knowledge" you have contradict what's on the public record?

Maybe you didn't see it or have forgotten, but the link was here on TOL a while ago. What he claimed in his testimony wasn't different than...well, his testimony, but it certainly doesn't square with what The Edge is claiming.

If I recall correctly he was a bit sheepish about how he had been treating his mother directly before the "event" occured.

Zakath
April 7th, 2005, 02:48 PM
Most of those links were about corporal punishment pro/con. Little to do with the info I was asking for.What info might that be...


Maybe you didn't see it or have forgotten, but the link was here on TOL a while ago. What he claimed in his testimony wasn't different than...well, his testimony, but it certainly doesn't square with what The Edge is claiming.OK.


If I recall correctly he was a bit sheepish about how he had been treating his mother directly before the "event" occured.And does that provide justification for his mother's boyfriend, or was it fiance, or was he actually married to this woman at the time, beating him with belt? :think:

Turbo
April 7th, 2005, 04:03 PM
I do not know all the facts. It is possible Enyart crossed the line and the discipline was borderline abusive. If he is totally innocent, then he has not violated the Word and God does not go against it. If he was quilty of unbiblical and illegal discipline, then he is convicted in God's court and human courts (Rom. 13). The State is not always right. They think any spanking is abusive, which is contrary to the Word. If it was done in anger or left marks or was against a teenager, etc., then it is not defensible. This is somewhat subjective. We do not want to side with pop psychology that minimizes any discipline. We also do not want to hide behind the Bible and justify excessive force. There are Christians that are guilty of abuse. Not that Dobson is the end all and be all, but I suspect his expertise would question this case if it is true it was over a shower and left significant marks.

One should be careful to not assume a high profile leader can do no wrong or should not be held accountable if they cross the line. As a leader, it would be wiser to be more temperate and not open the door to false accusations or give credence to others who may not have self-control and use him as a justification for excessive force. The point can be made with one spank, not 3. Did he use his hand or an object. Objects are perceived as weapons and excessive abuse.
I appreciate that you have not rushed to judgment, and I agree with much of your post. But it appears that even you have been somewhat influenced by pop psychology and the liberals' holy war against spanking. I hope that you will reconsider some of your assertions in light of scripture:


If it ...left marks ...then it is not defensible.

Blows that hurt cleanse away evil,
As do stripes the inner depths of the heart. Proverbs 20:30

If it ...was against a teenager... then it is not defensible.
Why not? Does a child suddenly become exempt from corporal punishment when he reaches thirteen? Now, if a child has been properly trained and disciplined since birth, spanking a teenager should seldom be necessary. But if a spanking is deserved, so be it. (Not that the boy in this case was a teenager, but I still think it's worth discussing.)

The point can be made with one spank, not 3.
That depends. What if a child does not submit after one blow? How long must a parent wait to administer another? Note that "stripes" is plural in Proverbs 20:30.

Did he use his hand or an object. Objects are perceived as weapons and excessive abuse.
I'd just as soon not have my children associate my hands with pain.

Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child;
but the rod of correction will drive it far from him. – Proverbs 22:15

He who spares his rod hates his son,
But he who loves him disciplines him promptly. – Proverbs 13:24

Do not withhold correction from a child,
For if you beat him with a rod, he will not die.
You shall beat him with a rod,
And deliver his soul from hell. – Proverbs 23:13-14

The rod and rebuke give wisdom,
But a child left to himself brings shame to his mother. – Proverbs 29:15


A couple more comments:

As a leader, it would be wiser to be more temperate and not open the door to false accusations...One should not avoid doing good for fear of being accused of evil by people who can't discern the difference. Bob's motto is "Do right and risk the consequences," and as far as I've seen he lives by it.

In regards to this case, I've heard Bob say that he would rather obey God and risk the wrath of the government than to withhold correction and risk the boy's destruction. But he also takes responsibility for having caused this incredibly difficult situation for his family. For if he had not destroyed his first marriage, this never would have occurred. But we (and those around us) must live with the consequences of our sins even when we are repentant.


...or give credence to others who may not have self-control and use him as a justification for excessive force.It sounds like your saying people should hold back from spanking properly to avoid inspiring others to spank excessively. One could (and many do) use that reasoning to abstain from spanking all together. How about setting spanking rightly, according to God's word, and setting a proper example for others?

Nineveh
April 7th, 2005, 04:09 PM
What info might that be...

Post 21


And does that provide justification for his mother's boyfriend, or was it fiance, or was he actually married to this woman at the time, beating him with belt? :think:

Would it really matter to you one way or the other?

julie21
April 7th, 2005, 05:26 PM
Turbo: I'd just as soon not have my children associate my hands with pain.
I am honestly asking here if you mean that by using a 'device' to spank your child with, instead of using just your own hand, that your hands then will be seen by the recipient as innocent of inflicting the pain?
I am sorry Turbo, but if your hands are the ones holding an inanimate object that is inflicting pain on a child, young child, teenager, whatever age...I cannot see that your hands will not be seen logically as anything but being associated with pain at that time. Believe me...as one who has been down that track personally when a child...if your hands are the ones that are holding a paper, a belt, a dowel or whatever to smack a child with, that child will not hold any malice to the inanimate object, but rather the hand that held it. They will fear the inanimate object, but only when held in your hands as a device of inflicting pain.
They will naturally remember the times those hands held theirs with love, or held them lovingly or patted their heads lovingly, but it will always remain that those same hands inflicted pain at times. And it will be remembered for years to come...even if as a grown adult, the past action can be seen as warranted, the level of pain inflicted and the way it was carried out may not.
I believe if a child needs a spanking, so be it. But excessive use of it I do not condone, and an open faced hand is all that is ever warranted in my opinion.
I know that there are those who will not agree with my point of view in this, but that is the priviledge that I have...that I can state my personal point of view.

Turbo
April 7th, 2005, 07:33 PM
I am honestly asking here if you mean that by using a 'device' to spank your child with, instead of using just your own hand, that your hands then will be seen by the recipient as innocent of inflicting the pain?Yes, but I wasn't looking to state an absolute or anything. When the hand is routinely used to correct a child, it may easier to slip into striking a child in anger rather than in a consistent, structured manner. I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong to use one's hand, but I think it's better to use an instrament. You'll notice that when God speaks of corporal punishment He repeatedly refers to the use of a rod.


I am sorry Turbo, but if your hands are the ones holding an inanimate object that is inflicting pain on a child, young child, teenager, whatever age...I cannot see that your hands will not be seen logically as anything but being associated with pain at that time.The goal would be would be for the child to associate misbehavior with pain in the short term, and in the long term for the child to no longer desire to misbehave.


Believe me...as one who has been down that track personally when a child...if your hands are the ones that are holding a paper, a belt, a dowel or whatever to smack a child with, that child will not hold any malice to the inanimate object, but rather the hand that held it.
Malice? That's not the effect God says to expect when properly administering the rod of correction. Are you talking about just, consistent, structured, Biblical spankings here or something else?

And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord. Ephesians 5:4


They will fear the inanimate object, but only when held in your hands as a device of inflicting pain.Then will the hands be associated with pain only when they hold the object?


They will naturally remember the times those hands held theirs with love, or held them lovingly or patted their heads lovingly, but it will always remain that those same hands inflicted pain at times. And it will be remembered for years to come...As a general rule, people I've talked to (regardless of their own views on spanking) have had big smiles on their faces when they talk about the whoopin' their dad gave them that time they pulled such-and-such.


I believe if a child needs a spanking, so be it. But excessive use of it I do not condone, and an open faced hand is all that is ever warranted in my opinion.
I know that there are those who will not agree with my point of view in this, but that is the priviledge that I have...that I can state my personal point of view.Okay... But be aware that your opinion doesn't conform with God's on this matter:


He who spares his rod hates his son,
But he who loves him disciplines him promptly. – Proverbs 13:24

Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child;
but the rod of correction will drive it far from him. – Proverbs 22:15

Do not withhold correction from a child,
For if you beat him with a rod, he will not die.
You shall beat him with a rod,
And deliver his soul from hell. – Proverbs 23:13-14

The rod and rebuke give wisdom,
But a child left to himself brings shame to his mother. – Proverbs 29:15

Zakath
April 7th, 2005, 07:39 PM
Would it really matter to you one way or the other?Yes, otherwise I wouldn't have wasted my time asking you. :rolleyes:

julie21
April 7th, 2005, 08:33 PM
Turbo...read your reply with interest. Thank ypu for clarifying your views on the matter.

Turbo: Malice? That's not the effect God says to expect when properly administering the rod of correction.
But unfortunately, even God does not always get what He desires, effect or otherwise.

And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord. Ephesians 5:4
Thoroughly agree here...love is the first step of admonition. Even when I wasn't a Christian, that is how I advocated in bringing up my children, in showing them gentle, loving rebuke for inerrant behaviour, and have never had the ocassion to need to raise my hand nor an instrument to rebuke them physically.


The goal would be would be for the child to associate misbehavior with pain in the short term, and in the long term for the child to no longer desire to misbehave.
This type of training I always picture with Lab rats suffering electrical shocks...not children we love...sorry, my view once again.

Then will the hands be associated with pain only when they hold the object?
I would say not only then.

Okay... But be aware that your opinion doesn't conform with God's on this matter:
I believe it does, when Jesus died on the Cross and personally fulfilled the law [in my opinion] and so I choose to follow His decree of LOVE, and forgiveness, rather than the OT ways of corporal punishment.
Once again..my personal views that I wil be happy to run past God on the day I appear before Him. I don't care what anyone else thinks I shall have to answer for, as all else are mere man like me, and will have their own actions to answer for. So be it.

SOTK
April 7th, 2005, 08:44 PM
Interesting conversation....spanking. I tend to lean towards Turbo's point of view and the scripture he cited. I spank my children when I feel it's appropriate and necessary. This isn't the only form of punishment I choose to use, but I do use it. I don't think any of us should rush to judge Mr. Enyart regardless of what the record is. Working in and around youth for the last 12 years, I can say I've seens tons of parents be crucified by the State and/or media for spankings which were obviously appropriate. Yes, I've also seen abuse. From my point of view, I see corporal punishment and abuse as two completely different things. It's been pretty obvious to me where a parent crossed the line. As I think Turbo pointed out, the biased liberal media has blurred the line. That's the problem. Spanking is an appropriate and biblical concept. The liberal media obviously doesn't think it is.

I don't think spanking is a science. I don't care what any parent says. I have attempted to spank in a way which is consistent with every time I have chosen to do it. In other words, I use the same spanking tool, I spank the same amount each time, and try to use the same amount of force. There have been occasions where I have left a mark. There have been many occasions where I didn't leave a mark. I remember one time where my son was refusing to sit still. In trying to hold him down, I temporarily lost control of my spanking tool and the swat came down wrong on his bottom causing him to have quite the bruise. I admit I felt bad a little bit but not really that much. I told him to sit still and he didn't. I tell you one thing; he doesn't move around anymore!

My point is that spanking is supposed to hurt. And like any form of discipline, it's not always going to go the way the parent and child wants. The key to any form of discipline is motivation or intent. I discipline my children because I love them and want them to learn. I want them to know right from wrong.

It's ridiculous for anybody to think that Mr. Enyart wanted to harm his child out of malice or viciousness. He was teaching his son right from wrong. That's what his motivation was. Come on people! Stop listening to the biased liberal media!

The Edge
April 7th, 2005, 08:55 PM
Julie, Turbo,
Agree with both of you on spanking. My wife and I have always been for it. I was spanked. I tell you, I have no fear or bad memories of it, but some of the "scariest" punishments I have gotten or been threatened with were a lot less violent, such as long groundings or losing a favorite toy or the cancellation of a family vacation.

But back to the point...Spanking is all good, but Bob Enyart crossed the line between Godly adminition and abuse. And the fierce devotion to him is a little creepy. Nothing I can do about it, you all follow who you like. I personally don't like to consistantly say I'm a follower of a man. People need to admit that Bob Enyart is not this untouchable, holy authority on God. The abusive punishment, along with the strange views on government, the hated radio show, and the harsh tones and stuff like that are enough to make me not want to follow the man.

1 Corinthians 1:10, 12-13 "Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the smae mind and in the same judgement. ... Now I say this, that each of you says, "I am of Paul," or "I am of Apollos," or "I am of Cephas," or "I am of Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?"
I follow Christ. I read the writings of John MacArthur, Charles Ryrie, Wayne Grudem, and others, but don't necessarily agree with all of it, because each man speaks truth and each man makes mistakes. Test it all according to scripture. And I never come on here and try to make everyone believe that any one of these men is this untouchable creature that can do no wrong. I never come on here saying I'm a follower of any of these men. And I won't be converted into an Enyart follower. Enyart has a much more questionable past than any of the men I mentioned, after he came to Christ! I read more about Enyart today, and I see he's done a lot of good, but I still question his motives and views on some things. Therefore, I just have a little trouble when people act like Bob Enyart is the source of absolute truth. That's all. I chose not to align myself with that. I can have that view.

Do the research for yourselves. I think is 5 day thing is absolutely chilling. That freaks me out, and I don't think Christian men need to be worrying about changing our government to put to death all the people that Enyart thinks should be executed. In my opinion, homosexuality is a sin, and people can turn from it. I had a friend in college who was saved and gave up homosexuality, and married a beautiful lady. So as you can see, I disagree and I have the right to.

The Edge
April 7th, 2005, 09:00 PM
sotk, I agree with coporal punishment

Turbo
April 7th, 2005, 09:09 PM
:SOTK: :up:

julie21
April 7th, 2005, 09:16 PM
SOTK...Please do not think that I am opposed to no spanking at all. If a smack on the rear with the hand [as I don't advocate using anything else] is justified, after reasonable discussion on the matter and the innerrant behaviour is still prevalent, then so be it.
I also advocate taking away of priviledges, as a form of behaviour control. Also, a stern look and speaking of their name in a strong tone, that sends a clear message to the child that their behaviour is inappropriate can work just as much as a smack, in any circumsatance. Followed up with a discussion on why the look was given, makes it clear what is expected next time. A child can be trained to know what is expected from them right from the start, and it does not necesarily involve corporal punishment. I just cannot see Jesus smacking a little child...ever.
I agree with 'motivation and intent'...I motivated my children into doing what was expected of them out of a sense of love and respect for others, including their family. This has now manifested in two teenagers who have great respect for their parents, family, and others around them. The intent was to have children who behaved according to our familiy's rules of behaviour, out of a sense of love, and loyalty to our family's sense of values and moral behaviour within society.
I to go by scripture, but more so the scripture that Jesus gave in the NT...love beats the rod any day...but if love through words and affection are not enough, then the rod should only ever be the open hand on a buttock, and a matter of last resort.
Funnily enough...personally I only really classify myself as a parent and a Christian. And I see spanking, via the rod, as an OT Biblical concept, that Christ put Himself on the Cross to overcome. I believe that if we are going to pick one Biblical concept [of the OT law] as being a benchmark for our way of punishment or whatever today, that we must then apply every one of Gods biblical concepts from the OT...we cannot merely justify the use of one concept but then negate the rest. It's a fine line we walk, I believe, when we do that.
Peace.

Turbo
April 7th, 2005, 09:54 PM
Are you accusing anyone here of worshipping Bob Enyart as an idol?
Yes or no, The Edge?


And the fierce devotion to him is a little creepy.

Bob Enyart is a dear friend. He's my brother in Christ. And he's a man for whom I have great respect. He led me to the Lord and has taught me much about Him. And in the very post in which you accused erin of wrongly judging you, a fellow Christian whom you claim she does not know well enough to judge, you falsely accused a fellow Christian whom you know next to nothing about of something far worse. That makes you a hypocrite. And you admit that you did so to "discredit" him so that you could blow off the points he made in the article that erin linked. That may be most blatant ad hominem argument I have ever seen.

I have personally heard Bob Enyart's stepson say that he deserved his spanking, and that he learned to respect his mother as a result of it, and that he felt better about himself because of that.

If Cheryl objected to Bob's actions and philosophies regarding spanking, why do you suppose she married him and had three children with him?

And exactly how much blood do you think can be shed by five swats to the backside with a belt?

I don't defend my friends when they are wrong. I'm much more likely to rebuke that friend myself. But when a friend is wrongly accused of something vile, you'd better believe I will rush to his defense. And if you find that sort of behavior to be "creepy," then I aspire to be the biggest creep you will ever encounter!

The Edge
April 7th, 2005, 10:09 PM
Of course we'll defend our friends. And of course we'll defend them if we subscribe to the same teachings. The boy admittedf he benefitted from the spank? Of course, if it's all he ever knew. We don't know that for sure. But I did not accuse Bob Enyart. I reminded us all of some facts from his past that should make people question their devotion to him. If you can't handle that, then I cannot help you. Just as your sister in law, I stand firmly on what I said. You can't change that with anything you say. And I rebuked Erin a lot nicer than she ATTACKED me.

You are not going to change my mind Turbo. Neither you or any of Bob Enyart's people.

Turbo
April 7th, 2005, 10:31 PM
But I did not accuse Bob Enyart. :rolleyes: From you're previous post:

Bob Enyart crossed the line between Godly adminition and abuse.


I reminded us all of some facts from his past that should make people question their devotion to him.
Here we go again...

Are you accusing anyone here of worshipping Bob Enyart as an idol?
Yes or no, The Edge?


And I rebuked Erin...You stated via private message that you think it's wrong to rebuke someone publicly without first going to them privately. Did you rebuke Erin privately before rebuking her on this thread?


...she ATTACKED me.Considering you said you forgave her and would stop talking about this, you sure talk about this a lot. :think:

The Edge
April 7th, 2005, 11:02 PM
Erin has a history of not responding to my private messages. That is why I addressed her publically. The nature of the incident required that. That is why I wrote it so carefully. Took me 5 hours.

We could go round and round on this forever. You are missing my point completely. No progress is going to be made. I'm not going to keep going round and round with you on this anymore. I have other debates I'm involved in that are far more interesting and fun, and require actually digging into some good, solid theology.

SOTK
April 7th, 2005, 11:08 PM
SOTK...Please do not think that I am opposed to no spanking at all. If a smack on the rear with the hand [as I don't advocate using anything else] is justified, after reasonable discussion on the matter and the innerrant behaviour is still prevalent, then so be it.
I also advocate taking away of priviledges, as a form of behaviour control. Also, a stern look and speaking of their name in a strong tone, that sends a clear message to the child that their behaviour is inappropriate can work just as much as a smack, in any circumsatance. Followed up with a discussion on why the look was given, makes it clear what is expected next time. A child can be trained to know what is expected from them right from the start, and it does not necesarily involve corporal punishment. I just cannot see Jesus smacking a little child...ever.
I agree with 'motivation and intent'...I motivated my children into doing what was expected of them out of a sense of love and respect for others, including their family. This has now manifested in two teenagers who have great respect for their parents, family, and others around them. The intent was to have children who behaved according to our familiy's rules of behaviour, out of a sense of love, and loyalty to our family's sense of values and moral behaviour within society.
I to go by scripture, but more so the scripture that Jesus gave in the NT...love beats the rod any day...but if love through words and affection are not enough, then the rod should only ever be the open hand on a buttock, and a matter of last resort.
Funnily enough...personally I only really classify myself as a parent and a Christian. And I see spanking, via the rod, as an OT Biblical concept, that Christ put Himself on the Cross to overcome. I believe that if we are going to pick one Biblical concept [of the OT law] as being a benchmark for our way of punishment or whatever today, that we must then apply every one of Gods biblical concepts from the OT...we cannot merely justify the use of one concept but then negate the rest. It's a fine line we walk, I believe, when we do that.
Peace.

Julie,

I don't really have a problem with most of what you wrote. :) As I said, I have many different approaches to disciplining my children. Spanking is just one of them. I truly believe that if it wasn't for spanking, some of my other disciplining techniques wouldn't work as well. Since I have spanked, it usually only takes a stern look or a time out anymore to get my kids to stop their negative behavior and change. Also, spanking isn't an angry reaction as so many people assume. I have never spanked out of anger. I talk with my kids out of love before and after the spankings.

I think it's a mistake to not take to heed what the Old Testament states. Yes, as Christians, we aren't under the Law, however, the Old Testament is just not about the Law. The Old Testament is still God's Word. Heck, the Old Testament proves Jesus is who He said He was. The Old Testament is full of Godly truth and wisdom. I feel spanking is one such example of Godly wisdom. If you want to make the argument that spanking is not required of us as Christians, I could listen to that. As I said, I don't believe we are under the Law, but by the same token, I don't believe spanking was intended to be a part of the Law anyways. I feel the same way about many of the things which are spoken to us through Old Testament scripture. For example, my wife loves Proverbs 31. For her, there is a lot of Truth and Godly wisdom in Proverbs 31. Are the concepts and attitudes in Provers 31 necessarily required of her as a Christian? Well, not necessarily but she feels that they are because it's God's Word. I feel the same way about spanking and many other attitudes and concepts which are told to us through the Old Testament.

At any rate, I respect your feelings and views but disagree. :)

Knight
April 7th, 2005, 11:08 PM
We could go round and round on this forever. You are missing my point completely. No progress is going to be made. I'm not going to keep going round and round with you on this anymore. I have other debates I'm involved in that are far more interesting and fun, and require actually digging into some good, solid theology.Translation: I don't like getting pressed on the facts. It's much easier ringing the doorbell and then running like mad.

Turbo
April 7th, 2005, 11:08 PM
You are not going to change my mind Turbo. Neither you or any of Bob Enyart's people.
And now for something completely different...

Zakath, it would be perfectly accurate for someone to say of this thread, "Turbo hardened The Edge's heart." Yet I did not violate his free will to do so, and he could have reacted differently if he had wanted to.

Knight
April 7th, 2005, 11:16 PM
And the fierce devotion to him is a little creepy. Nothing I can do about it, you all follow who you like. I personally don't like to consistantly say I'm a follower of a man.Nah... if we were really "followers" of the man we would probably use his name as our TOL username and possibly even use a picture of him as our avatar. But that would be a little creepy don't you think? :rolleyes:

The Edge
April 7th, 2005, 11:17 PM
Knight, yup.

Turbo
April 7th, 2005, 11:20 PM
Nah... if we were really "followers" of the man we would probably use his name as our TOL username and possibly even use a picture of him as our avatar. But that would be a little creepy don't you think? :rolleyes:
:darwinsm:
:darwinsm:
:darwinsm:

Knight
April 7th, 2005, 11:22 PM
After a post like that last one I have this urge to shout a certain Ace Ventura line from Pet Detective. :D

Knight
April 7th, 2005, 11:36 PM
And then if we were truly obsessed we would....

- Use his name as our TOL username
- Make our avatar a picture of him

AND.....

- Make our TOL signature a dedication to his greatness.

Now THAT would be..... REALLY creepy. :shocked:

The Edge
April 7th, 2005, 11:38 PM
May God help us if that ever happens.

Knight
April 7th, 2005, 11:39 PM
May God help us if that ever happens. :bang: :hammer: :kookoo:

Turbo
April 7th, 2005, 11:41 PM
Stop! Stop! You're killing me! :darwinsm::darwinsm::darwinsm::darwinsm::darwinsm: :dead:

Knight
April 7th, 2005, 11:46 PM
I have been giggling for the last fifeteen minutes. I think my wife is going to think I am nuts.

godrulz
April 7th, 2005, 11:52 PM
I also am for spanking. The Bible is not explicit in how this is done (# of times, etc.). It teaches principles of discipline. To say that 5 times is better than 4 or 6 or that one with the hand is not enough goes beyond Scripture. Most people who hit 5x are doing it in the flesh out of anger or frustration.

Knight
April 7th, 2005, 11:58 PM
May God help us if that ever happens.
:singer:Yo, VIP, Lets kick it!

Edge, Edge baby...
Edge, Edge baby...
All right stop
Collaborate and listen
Knight is back with my brand new addition
Something grabs a hold of me tightly Then i flow that truth harpoon daily and nightly
Will it ever stop?
Yo-I dont know
Flip back the page and I'll show
To the extreme I smack the forum like a poster on a truthsmakin' spree
Light up this thread and re-read post number 233.

Turbo
April 8th, 2005, 12:01 AM
:BRAVO: :knight:

julie21
April 8th, 2005, 12:21 AM
Well, there you have it...thus endeth this particular ball game perhaps...the fans of either side can start winding down to go home, 'cos the end of reason has come. Those combatants on one side believe they have the upper hand and claim that the Truth [ as they believe it] has been told sufficient for them. Final score...well, let us see...mmmm! Don't know truthfully at this hour, for the time is not yet nigh when the True scorer will let us all know. Interesting...just merely musing in a slightly whimsical kinda way ;)

SOTK
April 8th, 2005, 01:41 AM
:singer:Yo, VIP, Lets kick it!

Edge, Edge baby...
Edge, Edge baby...
All right stop
Collaborate and listen
Knight is back with my brand new addition
Something grabs a hold of me tightly Then i flow that truth harpoon daily and nightly
Will it ever stop?
Yo-I dont know
Flip back the page and I'll show
To the extreme I smack the forum like a poster on a truthsmakin' spree
Light up this thread and re-read post number 233.

Vanilla Knight? :chuckle:

PureX
April 8th, 2005, 06:04 AM
It's ridiculous for anybody to think that Mr. Enyart wanted to harm his child out of malice or viciousness. He was teaching his son right from wrong. That's what his motivation was. Come on people! Stop listening to the biased liberal media!I don't think it's so ridiculous. There are lots of parents who can't control their own anger and who harm their children routinely because of it. It's not at all ridiculous to presume that a man convicted of having done so might actually have done so.

What I find so interesting, here, is that many of the people claiming that we're all jumping to judgment regarding Enyart are the same people who always want the maximun punishment meeted out to everyone else, often without ever bothering to even ascertain the facts of their accusation. The hypocracy is so thick it's like walking on vasaline.

Turbo
April 8th, 2005, 06:10 AM
I don't think it's so ridiculous. There are lots of parents who can't control their own anger and who harm their children routinely because of it. It's not at all ridiculous to presume that a man convicted of having done so might actually have done so.

What I find so interesting, here, is that many of the people claiming that we're all jumping to judgment regarding Enyart are the same people who always want the maximun punishment meeted out to everyone else, often without ever bothering to even ascertain the facts of their accusation. The hypocracy is so thick it's like walking on vasaline."without ever bothering to even ascertain the facts of their accusation"? :nono: We advocate the just and appropriate punishment be meeted out to criminals who are rightly convicted based on at least two or three lines of evidence.

Meanwhile, you're the guy who goes around saying how we can never be sure of anything, and yet in this case you are eager to "presume" the worst. Go figure.

PureX
April 8th, 2005, 06:14 AM
"without ever bothering to even ascertain the facts of their accusation"? :nono: We advocate the just and appropriate punishment be meeted out to criminals who are rightly convicted based on at least two or three lines of evidence.

Meanwhile, you're the guy who goes around saying how we can never be sure of anything, and yet in this case you are eager to "presume" the worst. Go figure.I haven't presumed anything. I'm only ponting out that it's not ridiculous to think that a man convicted of child abuse might actually have committed child abuse. And if we weren't talking about Enyart, here, you all would be howling for blood, and you know it.

Turbo
April 8th, 2005, 06:59 AM
I haven't presumed anything.Right. :rolleyes:
I'm only ponting out that it's not ridiculous to think that a man convicted of child abuse might actually have committed child abuse.It is if one knows the difference between proper discipline and abuse, and bothers to inverstigate the facts.
And if we weren't talking about Enyart, here, you all would be howling for blood, and you know it.More presumptions?

Yeah, we right-wingers always cheering when our courts label spanking as child abuse. Good call. :freak: